Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Singh @ Albela Singh @ Albela vs The State Of Bihar Jharkhand on 1 February, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1341 of 2016
-----
1. Ravi Singh @ Albela Singh @ Albela
2. Kanhaiya Pachari ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
------
st
Order No. 08/Dated 1 February, 2024
I.A. No. 2197 of 2023 & I.A. No. 6649 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory applications have been filed under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence in
connection with the judgment of conviction dated 26.09.2016
and order of sentence dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II-F.T.C.-II, Bokaro in Sessions
Trial No. 313 of 2015, arising out of Balidih P.S. Case No. 155
of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1670 of 2015, whereby and
whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the
offence under Sections 366/34, 376(D), 302, 201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code each, they are further
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 20 years with
fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal
Code each. In default they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment
of three months each. They are further sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years under Section 366/34 of
the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default
they shall undergo for Simple Imprisonment of three months.
Further, they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
of seven years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 201/34 of
the Indian Penal Code in default they shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment of one month. It is further directed that all the
substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant has submitted by referring to the finding recorded
by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment that the
conviction since is not based upon the testimony of the eye-
witness, rather it is on the basis of the last seen theory, as such,
the learned trial court on the basis of probability has convicted
both the appellants, which is contrary to the settled position of
law that the prosecution is to prove the charges beyond all
reasonable doubt.
3. It has been submitted that the dead body was found after gap
of 04 days from the date of alleged occurrence, wherein the
allegation against both the appellants are that they have
dragged the lady taken away and subjected to rape and
thereafter, she has been killed. Therefore, there is no cogent
evidence to substantiate the same version of the prosecution
and in that view of the matter, it is fit case for suspension of
sentence.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Special
Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence on the ground that it is a case where the
learned trial court has convicted both the appellants on the
basis of last seen theory and recovery of the sameez and salwar
with blood and semen stain of the deceased victim, blood stain
T-Shirt attached with cap and lash (fita) used to strangulate till
death of deceased which resulted to secret of blood from mouth
and nose of the deceased on T-Shirt while lifting the dead body
on the shoulder of Sukhlal Pandya @ Poria for destroying and
concealing the evidence of the offence
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor based upon the same has
submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned
Judgment, as also the testimony of the witnesses and other
relevant documents as available in the lower courts record.
7. The law is settled, so far the parameter for suspension of
sentence is concerned, that if a prima facie case, which is to be
made out in favour of the appellants for suspension of
sentence.
8. We have proceeded to examine the factual aspect and has
found the basis of conviction as per discussion made by the
learned Trial Court, in the impugned judgment i.e., dragging
of the deceased by these two appellants.
9. Further, on their confession sameez and salwar with blood and
semen stain of the deceased victim, blood stain T-Shirt
attached with cap and lash (fita) have been recovered.
10. The learned Trial Court basing upon the same and applying
the principle of Section 27 of the Evidence Act based upon last
seen theory has convicted the appellants. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that the appellants have not been able to make
prima facie case for suspension of sentence.
11. Accordingly, both the interlocutory applications i.e. I.A. No.
2197 of 2023 and I.A. No. 6649 of 2023 are hereby dismissed.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1341 of 2016
12. The appeal is of the year 2016 and the appeals of the year 2016
are being listed in the daily cause list for hearing the matter on
merit.
13. Therefore, since the appellants are in custody since
02.07.2015, as such it would be just and proper to direct the
office to list this case under heading "For Hearing" at its
seriatim.
14. Office is further directed to supply the copy of the paper book
to the learned counsel for the parties as per the High Court
Rules and direction passed by this Court.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil/
