Lalan Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 4721 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Lalan Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2024

Author: Subhash Chand

Bench: Ananda Sen, Subhash Chand

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 465 of 2023
                                            -----
             Lalan Yadav                                        ... Appellant(s).
                                      Versus
             State of Jharkhand                                 ... Respondent(s).

             CORAM        :       SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K, Kashyap, Sr, Advocate Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Informant : Ms. Renu Bala, Advocate .........

03/01.05.2024:

I.A. No.3877 of 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 Sessions Trial No. 477 of 2019, for the offence under Section 302/201of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.40,000/- for offence under Section 302 of the IPC along with other sentences for other offence.

3. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.

4. Opportunity was given to the State and the informant to oppose the bail, which both availed and opposed.

5. Though there is no eye witness to the occurrence but the material which has been placed before this Court suggests that this appellant along with others were seen in the company of the deceased. In a very short span of time from last seen together, i.e within 10- 15 minutes, an information reached to the wife of the deceased that the deceased was murdered and thrown in the well. The body was recovered. Doctor who conducted the post-mortem found ante-mortem injuries and cause of death was strangulation.

6. Counsel for the appellant relied on the statement of defence witnesses, who stated that his house is next to the well. He heard something falling in the well. When he reached, he saw the deceased was trying to save himself but by the time this witness could bring rope and other material to save him, he got drowned.

7. Be it noted that from the evidence of the doctor it is clear that this case is not of drowning. It is a case of death by strangulation, thereafter throwing the body in the well. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the statement of D.W.

8. The fact remains that the deceased was in company of this appellant and within a very short span of time i.e 10 minutes his body was found in the well. The death is homicidal, hence we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the Interlocutory application stand dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(SUBHASH CHAND, J.)

Anjali/- cp2