Jharkhand High Court
Lokesh Kumar Choudhary @ Laukesh Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1390 of 2023
Lokesh Kumar Choudhary @ Laukesh Kumar Choudhary ..... ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J.
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate
Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar Shukla, A.P.P.
--------
07/01.05.2024 I.A. No.1464 of 2024
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Shailesh
Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant appeared through hybrid mode. He
has no complain with respect to the audio, video clarity and quality.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to suspend
the sentence and release him on bail during pendency of this appeal.
3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection with
S.T. No. 486 of 2019 for the offence under Section 302/34, 201/34 and 120-
B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has
been sentenced to undergo RI for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code amongst other sentences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the
State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the
Trial Court Records.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has
come up with the story that both the dead bodies were found in the office of
this appellant but the same is not correct. He further submits that the bodies
were planted which would be evident from the statement of the landlord who
stated that the office was already unlocked when he reached there. He also
submits that save and except P.W.-1, no one has stated that they had heard
about the sound of gun shot. So far as the motive is concerned, he submits
that the prosecution has come up with the very feeble evidence that
Rs.5,00,000/-was taken from the deceased and as the deceaseds were
pressing the appellant to return the money, they were killed. He further
submitted that it is the prosecution case that both the deceased left with the
Scooty for the market but later on, the prosecution has developed this case
stating that the telephone came from this appellant to the deceased to reach
his office for collecting the amount. He further seriously doubts that the
postmortem report based on the timings and the FIR and submits that this
postmortem could not have been conducted at 10:30 hours whereas the
inquest report was prepared at 15:00 hours in the evening, which does not
match and makes the prosecution case doubtful. He submits that the
statement of P.W.-5 to the effect that the deceased was called by Lokesh
Kumar, who is the appellant for repayment of money, as informed by the
deceased to P.W.-5 has wrongly been relied upon by the Court taking it to be
a dying declaration. The said statement cannot be said to be a dying
declaration. He further submits that the burden of proof has been wrongly
shifted upon this appellant when the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He further
submits that case being based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of
circumstances is not complete. By referring to several judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, he submits that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence, the Court should deal with each circumstances
separately and then link the circumstances, which has been proved to arrive
at the conclusion. In this case, he submits that none of the circumstances, if
weighed individually, even cannot complete the link, thus, this appellant is
entitled to be released on bail after suspending the sentence.
6. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the
State availed and opposed.
7. We are considering the suspension of sentence at this stage. After
going through the evidence, we find that both the deceased had left their
house with Scooty stating that they are going to the office of this appellant.
P.W.-1 is the Guard of the office of this appellant. In his statement, he stated
that he knew these two deceased. He stated that these two deceased
entered the office of this appellant. He further stated that this appellant and
others also entered the office of this appellant. He also stated that he heard
gunshot sound. After that, the accused persons including this appellant left
the office but he has not seen the deceased leaving the office. Tracing the
mobile, the dead bodies of the deceased were found inside the office of this
appellant. The landlord also stated that the office was given on rent to this
appellant. So far as the motive is concerned, prima facie we find that there
was some money dealing with the accused and the appellant which led to
this offence. Considering the aforesaid fact, we are not inclined to allow this
Interlocutory Application.
8. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(SUBHASH CHAND, J.)
Madhav/-
