Ashok Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3483 Jhar

                            1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1339 of 2017
                                   ------

Ashok Mahto S/O Sri Bulu Mahto, R/O Village-Semardih, P.O.+P.S.- Kisko & District-Lohardaga .... .... Appellant Versus

The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

------

        For the Appellant            : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate
        For the State                : None
                                  ------

09/Dated: 13.09.2023

I.A. No.6544 of 2023

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section

389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence dated 09.05.2017

passed by the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, in connection with

Sessions Trial No.127 of 2016 arising out of Kisko P.S. Case No.21 of

2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted

under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life

along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he has

further been directed to undergo S.I. for three months and further for

payment of victim compensation amounting to Rs.2 Lakhs.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that

earlier one interlocutory application was filed being I.A. No.354 of 2022

for suspension of sentence but the same was dismissed as not pressed

at that stage.

3. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on the ground

that two co-convicts have been directed to be released on bail after

suspending the sentence and hence, it is a fit case where the sentence

may be suspended.

4. None appears for the State.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone

through the judgment of conviction as also the material available on

record including the testimony of the witnesses.

6. It appears from the testimony of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased

that when she was sleeping with her husband in the poultry farm for

protection of poultry as well as for keeping a watch on the mango

orchard, the accused persons intruded into the poultry farm and

accused Vijender and Sulendra caught her husband and

accused/appellant Ashok assaulted him by means of Bhujali and

accused Mohan was keeping a vigil. The husband of P.W.1 succumbed

to injury and hence, the case.

7. P.W.1 has thoroughly been examined on behalf of the defence, in

which, she remained consistent.

8. It further appears that the testimony of P.W.1 has been

corroborated by the Doctor, who has found the following external

injuries:-

(i) Blood mixed froth present in nostril and mouth.

(ii) Penetrating incised would on right side of chest below clavicle

region obliquely between 2nd and 3rd ribs 4" x 3" x thoracic cavity deep,

cutting blood vessels beneath the wound.

9. The ground has been taken that two co-convicts have been

directed to be released on bail after suspension of sentence but on

perusal of testimony of P.W.1 has found that the co-convicts who have

been directed to be released on bail, i.e., one Vijender and Sulendra

who had caught her husband but the knife (bhujali) blow was given by

Ashok, the appellant herein.

10. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the direct

allegation is against the appellant of assaulting the husband of P.W.1,

which has been supported by her testimony and corroborated by the

testimony of Doctor, therefore, is of the view that it is not a case where

the sentence is to be suspended.

11. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.6544 of 2023

stands dismissed.

12. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not

prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its

consideration.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Rohit/-