Jharkhand High Court
Bablu Tiriya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1527 of 2023
------
Bablu Tiriya ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP
------
th
Order No.03/ Dated: 15 January, 2024
I.A. No. 10617 of 2023
The present Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence, during pendency of this criminal appeal.
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated and the order of sentence, both dated, 15.06.2023, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 68 of 2022 (corresponding to Jeteya PS
case No.08 of 2021), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted
for the offence under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced
to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 302 IPC with default
stipulation of SI for 1 year.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye
witness to the occurrence as PW-1 who is the informant has deposed in his cross-
examination that at the time of occurrence he was not even present at the place of
occurrence and in paragraph no. 8 he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence.
PW-2 cousin brother of the deceased has also not supported the case as in
paragraph no. 6 he has stated that he reached at the place of occurrence next day
and he has not seen the occurrence. The learned counsel further submitted that PW-
3, wife of the deceased, claims to be the eyewitness of the case, in her cross-
examination stated that she has not seen the occurrence. PW-7 who also claims to
be the eyewitness of the case, in paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination deposed
that he has not seen the occurrence. The learned counsel further submitted that all
the prosecution witnesses have stated that they have not seen the occurrence hence,
there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. He has further submitted that the
Investigating Officer has collected blood-stained soil and dauli which were sent to
FSL. However, as per medical report, mixed DNA was of more than one source of
human origin was found from the dauli and from the blood-stained soil no DNA
could be extracted. Therefore, prayer of the appellant for suspension of sentence,
during pendency of appeal, may be considered.
The learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for suspension
of sentence and has submitted that PW-3 and PW-4 in their examination-in-chief
have deposed that they have seen the occurrence. Further the doctor has opined that
the death was caused by hard and sharp substance. Therefore, his prayer for
suspension of sentence may not be considered.
Having gone through the records of the case, considering the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellant, named above, is ordered to be released on
bail, during pendency of the appeal, on executing bail-bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 68 of 2022
(corresponding to Jeteya PS case No.08 of 2021), subject to the condition that the
appellant shall submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card and mobile
number before the learned Court below which he will always keep active and will
not change it during pendency of the case without prior permission of the Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 10617 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
through Fax forthwith.
(Ratnaker Bhengra,J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
SB/KNR
