Jharkhand High Court
Londo Laguri @ Londe Laguri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 330 of 2016
----
Londo Laguri @ Londe Laguri
... ... 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. Pradeep Kr. Deomani, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Special P.P
--------
nd
Order No. 11: Dated 2 January, 2024
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
I.A. No. 2267 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of
appellant, named above, seeking suspension of sentence during
the pendency of the instant appeal after suspending the
impugned order of sentence dated 23.01.2016 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 2011 arising out of Tonto
P.S. Case No. 20 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 643 of
2010, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay
a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further to
undergo S.I. for six months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that it is a
case where there is no witness to the occurrence. It has
further been contended that though P.W. 4 has been
considered to be eye witness but when testimony of P.W. 4
will be read out in entirety i.e., the statement made by him
during examination and cross-examination, it would be
evident that he is also not an eye witness, as he has
specifically deposed his examination-in-chief that whatever
he has deposed it is on the basis of statement made by his
wife. P.W. 4 has further deposed that he has not seen the
commission of crime i.e., either commission of rape or assault
upon his wife.
3. Further submission has been made by referring to the
testimony of doctor that though it is specific case of the
prosecution that victim was assaulted by iron rod but the
doctor has opined that the assault was caused by substance
like stone.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted
that the appellant has undergone custody for more than 13
years.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid
premise has submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence
is to be suspended.
6. While on the other hand, learned Special P.P. appearing
for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence and submission has been made that the
prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all
reasonable doubt. Learned Special P.P. relying upon the
testimony of P.W. 4 has submitted that he has made specific
statement against the appellant. Therefore, it is not a case
where the sentence is to be suspended.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone
across finding recorded by the learned trial Court and the
documents available in Lower Court Record as also the
objection affidavit filed by the respondent-State.
8. It requires to refer herein that the matter was heard by
this Court on 3rd November, 2023 and after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, as prayed by learned counsel time
was granted to file objection affidavit in view of judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Somesh
Chaurasia Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. [2021 SCC OnLine SC
480]. Consequent thereupon, objection affidavit has been
filed. We have also gone through contents of the objection
affidavit.
9. This Court, in order to appreciate the fact as to whether
the conviction is based upon the testimony of eye-witness or
not, has gone through the testimony of P.W. 4, who is
husband of the victim. P.W. 4 in examination-in-chief has
made specific statement that the appellant committed rape
upon her wife (victim) and on halla being raised by her, the
appellant assaulted with iron rod due to which she died. He
has further deposed that on alarm being raised by his wife he
went there and found that his wife was lying there and stated
that the appellant has committed rape upon her and by
means of iron rod assaulted on head and stomach. However,
in cross-examination he has admitted that he did not see
either commission of rape or assault being made by iron rod
rather his wife has stated about the commission of crime.
Therefore, it is admitted fact that P.W. 4 is not an eye witness
and further there are no other eye witnesses to the
occurrence.
10. So far allegation of assault being made by iron rod is
concerned at paragraph 9, the doctor has opined that the
injury caused by hard and blunt substance like big stone. It
further appears from the testimony of the doctor that the doctor
(P.W. 7) has not corroborated about the commission of sexual
assault.
11. It further appears from the documents available on
record that the appellant has completed more than 13 years
of custody.
12. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the view that the instant Interlocutory
Application deserves to be allowed
13. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2267 of 2023 stands allowed.
14. In view thereof, the appellant named above, is directed to
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.
126 of 2011 arising out of Tonto P.S. Case No. 20 of 2010
corresponding to G.R. No. 643 of 2010.
15. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove
will not prejudice the case of the prosecution on merit since the
appeal is lying pending for its consideration
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Alankar/
