Jharkhand High Court
Joseph Topno vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 205 of 2018
------
Joseph Topno, age 39 years, son of Suleman Topno, resident of village
Jivlong, P.O. Jivlong, P.S. Rania, District Khunti ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jidan Topno, daughter of William Topno, R/o Village- Urikel,
Temretoli, P.O. & P.S. Rania, District Khunti ... ...
Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Alpna Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda,APP
--------
th
Order No. 09 / Dated: 12 November, 2024
IA No.1106 of 2018
1. The instant Appeal has been listed for passing appropriate order
on the instant Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of appellant
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension
of sentence/grant of bail during the pendency of the instant Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 205 of 2018 in connection with Rania P.S. Case No. 17/2007
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 361/2007 against the judgment of
conviction dated 15.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 17.07.2017
passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section
302 and 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 of IPC, the
amount of fine directed to be given to the younger son of deceased
Mukta Topno by way of compensation under Section 357 of Code of
Criminal Procedure and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was
further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months more.
No sentence has been passed under Section 323 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it
is a case where the death cannot be said to be intentional to kill rather it
is death caused due to unintentional hit given by the convict in a sudden
quarrel in between the appellant and the deceased. It has been contended
that the appellant has already remained in custody for about 17 years and
as such it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
3. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence, however he has admitted the period of
custody i.e. of about 17 years.
4. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into consideration the period of custody i.e. almost about 17
years the appellant is in judicial custody.
5. This Court is therefore of the view that it is a fit case where the
sentence is to be suspended.
6. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
7. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to
be released on bail during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in connection with Rania P.S. Case
No. 17/2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 361/2007.
8. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No.1106 of 2018 stands disposed of.
9. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is pending before
this Court for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 205 of 2018
