Md. Reyaz Ansari @ Reyaz Gaddi @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 4066 Jhar

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                     Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 410 of 2023

Md. Reyaz Ansari @ Reyaz Gaddi @ Reyaz Ansari
                                                        ... ... Appellant
                                     Versus
The State of Jharkhand                               ... ... Respondent
                              ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

-------

      For the Appellant     : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
      For the Respondent    : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP
                                 --------
04 /30.10.2023
             IA No. 5887 of 2023

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that one I.A. No. 5887 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer for suspending the judgment of conviction dated 27.06.2023 and the order of sentence dated 28.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in Jharia P.S. Case No. 192 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 2496 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the above named appellant has been convicted and sentenced under section 304 (ii) IPC and sentenced to four years RI and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of fine six months SI, and releasing of the appellant on bail during the pendency of this Appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant has first taken us to the substance of the FIR and read out from the statement of Rukhsana Khatoon, the informant and pointed out that apparently arguments have taken place between the deceased and the appellant. He has further submitted that it is to be noted that the deceased was already in the drunken state, as per the FIR. It is further submitted that the arguments had occurrence and thereafter some fight had taken place and immediately subsequent to the fight the appellant has informed the informant and thereafter assisted in taking the deceased to PMCH, Dhanbad hospital for treatment. It is further submitted that from the contents of the FIR itself it is clear that no intention was at all there to cause the death of the appellant and his motivation is fully expressed by his informing the informant and taking the deceased or assisting the informant in taking the deceased to PMCH, Dhanbad for treatment. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and therefore it

is only a case of circumstantial evidence and the death has not occurred on account of assault and all the bones and ribs were found intact. It is further submitted that the deceased fell down and then he sustained certain injuries and the consequences were effected. It is further submitted that at the most the offences can be made out under section 323 IPC and particularly considering the fact that deceased was already in drunken condition when the incident took place. Moreover, he has spent in custody for about nine months.

The learned counsel State has, on the other hand, opposed the bail prayer and submitted that from the reading of the FIR as well as the impugned judgment itself it seems that the assault is apparently admitted. He has further submitted that the evidence of the doctor is crucial and has taken us to the evidence of PW4, doctor who has conducted the postmortem and pointed out that on dissection blood and clots of size 2" x 1/2" over left frontal region and 3" x 2" over right frontal region found beneath scalp of head. Skull bone and meninges found intact and brain pale. No abnormality found in soft tissues and internal structure of neck, Larynx, Hyoid, trachea and thyroid found intact and their mucous membrane found pale. All ribs found intact, both lungs pale, right ventricle of heart partially full and left empty. Abdominal cavity found full of blood. Liver mesentery and omentum found lacerated. Stomach contain 30 cc juice like fluid with no specific smell mucous membrane pale. Bladder found empty and all other internal orgains found pale. It is further pointed out from para 7 of the cross- examination of PW 4 that the injuries of abdomen like haemorrhage and shock are possible if a person violently falls on a hard and blunt object with force and stated that this is the evidence of the doctor and submitted that even if the consequences of death are a result of haemorrhage and shock as a result of fall, the fall had occurred only because the assault was made by the appellant and therefore, the appellant cannot escape his liability. Moreover, he has further submitted that he has also not even undergone one year in custody whereas the imposed sentence is four year and, therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, the appellant should not be granted the privilege of bail and the sentence should not be suspended.

Having heard both counsels, having gone through the submissions of the counsel, having gone through the records of the case and

other records available and in the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, IA No. 5887 of 2023 is rejected.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Sharda/