Jharkhand High Court
Baga Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.878 of 2024
------
Baga Munda, Aged about 30 years, Son of Late Sukhram Munda,
Resident of village Sau Marang Bera Tola, P.O. & P.S. Arki, District-
Khunti. .... .... 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. Anupam Anand, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
------
05/Dated: 11.11.2024
I.A. No.11561 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of sentence dated 08.06.2022, in connection with S.T.
Case No.128 of 2017, arising out of Arki P.S. Case No.03 of 2017,
corresponding to G.R. No.35 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 and
34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along
with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has
further been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year
and R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 4 of Prevention
of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted by agitating
the ground that it is a case where the prosecution has failed to
establish the charge. Reason of such submission is that there is
contradiction in the deposition of P.W.3, who has been considered by
the learned trial Court as an eye witness.
3. It has further been contended that the incriminating weapons,
i.e., Kulhari (axe) and tono have not been found with the blood stain
and there is no examination by sending the blood sample said to be
there in the weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to
corroborate the incident.
4. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
5. Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension
of sentence.
6. It has been argued that it is incorrect on the part of the
appellant to take the ground that the testimony of P.W.3, who has
been considered by the learned trial Court to be an eye witness, is to
be thrown out, reason being that, P.W.3, who happens to be son of
the deceased, namely, Bali Munda and Sumi Devi, after hearing cry
of his parents and when rushed to the adjacent room, had found that
both the accused persons, namely, Lita and Baga (the appellant
herein) have been found to be there as also threatened the P.W.3 for
his killing, upon which, he fled away in the jungle and in the next
morning, he came to the Gram Pradhan and disclosed about the
incident.
7. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that P.W.3 has remained consistent both in the
examination-in-chief and cross-examination and as such, not
sending the weapons used in the commission of the said crime to the
FSL, is immaterial since the conviction is conclusively based upon
the testimony of P.W.3, the eye witness.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned
judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses along with other
exhibits, as available in the Trial Court Records, as has been called
for by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2024
9. This Court has found from the impugned judgment that the
conviction is based upon the testimony of P.W.3, who has been
considered as an eye witness.
10. It has been deposed by P.W.3 in paragraph-3 of the
examination-in-chief that he was sleeping in the room, while his
parents were sleeping in the adjacent room and at that time, he had
heard the noise of his parents and when he rushed to the room, has
found that the present appellant and one Lita, another accused
person were present in the said room where the Baga armed with a
tono and Lita armed with axe.
11. The aforesaid testimony of P.W.3, as recorded in paragraph-3
of the examination-in-chief, has also been corroborated by him, as
would be evident from the statement so recorded at paragraph-12 of
the cross-examination.
12. The learned trial Court based upon the aforesaid fact,
therefore, has considered the P.W.3 to be an eye witness.
13. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that since the
judgment is based upon the testimony of P.W.3, who has been
considered to be an eye witness and as such, it is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
14. Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.11561 of
2024 stands dismissed.
15. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Rohit/-
