Sukra Lohra @ Sanjay Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 5538 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sukra Lohra @ Sanjay Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2024

Author: Subhash Chand

Bench: Ananda Sen, Subhash Chand

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.75 of 2024
                                               -------
          Sukra Lohra @ Sanjay Lohra, son of Chuin Lohra, resident of Village Jura, P.O. &
          P.S. Bharno, District Gumla.                        ... ... Appellant.
                                                  Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand.
          2. Munna Lohrain, wife of late Jitram Lohra, resident of Village Jura, P.O. & P.S.
               Bharno, District Gumla.
                                                                       ... ... Respondents.
                                              ------

                         CORAM        : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

: SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate.

                   For the State          : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.
                                            Ms. Sharda Kumari (for informant)
                                                  ------



07/ 10.06.2024 :         This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the appellant praying

therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during pendency of this

appeal.

2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection with Split

Sessions Trial No.17 of 2023/ C.N.R. No.JHGM01002332. He has been convicted

for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced

to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default

of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.P.P. for the State and

learned counsel for the informant and have gone through the impugned judgment,

the evidence and the Trial Court Records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant questions the credibility of the eye

witnesses.

5. Opportunity was given to the State and the counsel for the informant to

oppose the bail, which they availed and opposed.

6. After going through the evidence and records, we find that there are two eye

witnesses to the same occurrence i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-3, who have clearly stated

how this appellant along with others has committed murder of the deceased. The

evidence of the Doctor also prima facie corroborates the ocular evidence.

7. Thus, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail.

8. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(SUBHASH CHAND, J.)

Prashant./Cp3