Jharkhand High Court
Sham Hembram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1094 of 2024
Sham Hembram, aged about 60 years, son of Late Ramsai Hembram, Resident of
village-Bara Sinni, P.O. - Rajabhitha, P.S. Rajabhitha, District- Godda, Jharkhand
..... 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. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
-----
th
Order No.6: Dated 19 November 2024
I.A. No.8773 of 2024
The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of
sentence during pendency of this appeal, which has been filed against the Judgment
of Conviction dated 15.05.2024 and order of Sentence dated 17.05.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda whereby and whereunder the appellant
has been convicted under sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in
connection with Session Trial Case No.-368 of 2022 arising out of Rajabihtha P.S
Case No.-07 of 2022 (G.R. No.-961/2022, T.R. No.-1855 of 2022) and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and with
fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he is further directed
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month. The appellant has been further
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 452 of the
Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default of payment of
fine, the appellant is further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. It has been contended by Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that it is a case where there is no eyewitness.
3. Submission has been made that although the learned trial court has
considered the testimony of PW-1 to be an eyewitness, but if the said statement will
be taken into consideration along with PW-6, investigating officer, then the
testimony of PW-1 cannot be said to be of an eyewitness, since, PW-1 has never
disclosed to the investigating officer-PW-6 that she had seen the occurrence,
particularly commission of crime by the present appellant. Learned counsel based
upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence is to
be suspended.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
It has been contended that the objection has been filed on behalf of the State
complying the order dated 14.10.2024, by which, this Court has allowed time to file
objection. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the conviction,
since is based on statement of PW-1, who is the eyewitness, cannot be said that the
Judgment of the learned trial court suffers from infirmity.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the
findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order, as also the
testimony of the witnesses and other material exhibits and also gone through the
objection filed on behalf of the State.
6. This Court in order to appreciate the argument regarding the testimony of
PW-1, who has been considered to be eyewitness has also considered the testimony
of PW-6, the investigating officer, who has deposed in his testimony that PW-1, in
course of investigation, has never disclosed that he had seen the occurrence.
7. This Court in order to consider the aforesaid aspect of matter has also gone
through the case diary and found therefrom that no such statement of PW-1 said to
have been given before the investigating officer, PW-6, has been recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is a case where
the judgment of conviction appears to be highly improbable and hence is of the
view that the appellant has made a prima facie case for suspension of sentence.
8. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail during the 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda in connection
with Rajabihtha P.S Case No.-07 of 2022 (G.R. No.-961/2022, T.R. No.-1855 of
2022).
9. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.8773 of
2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
-2- Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1094 of 2024
