Jharkhand High Court
Kush Ram @ Chotku Ram @ Chhotku Aged About ... 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 (D.B.) No.1108 of 2024
-----
1. Kush Ram @ Chotku Ram @ Chhotku aged about 42
years.
2. Law Ram @ Badku aged about 42 years.
Both sons of Late Nande Ram resident of Cantonment
Quarter, Shibu Colony, Nehru Road, P.O. and P.S.
Ramgarh, District Ramgarh. ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate
: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
------
th
Order No. 04/Dated 19 November, 2024
I.A. No.8521 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430(1) of the BNSS for suspension of sentence
dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with Session Trial No.33 of
2009 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.257 of 2008
whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted
for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with
fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further
R.I. for one year.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that
the witnesses who have disclosed about the commission of
crime involving the culpability of the present appellants,
cannot be said to be reliable which has been taken note by
the learned trial court on the ground that PW-9, the
Investigating Officer has stated in his deposition that none of
the witnesses have said about administering poison or any
demand of dowry in course of investigation and, as such, no
such statement has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
3. It has further been submitted that PW-6, 7 and 8
have deposed in their testimony that there was cordial
relationship in between the deceased and her husband's
family members.
4. Learned counsel has further submitted by referring to
the testimony of the witnesses including the testimony of the
Doctor that the reason for death is that the deceased was
suffering from disease of high Blood Pressure which is evident
from the conduct of the appellant No.1 who immediately had
carried the deceased to the hospital for her better treatment.
5. Learned counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid ground,
has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
6. While on the other hand, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for State, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
7. It has been submitted by her that all the witnesses
have all along supported the prosecution version as also their
version is being corroborated from the testimony of the Doctor
and, hence, it is incorrect to say that the judgment impugned
suffers from infirmity and, as such, it is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties,
gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in
the impugned judgment as also the testimony of witnesses
and the exhibits available in the lower court record which has
been called for by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2024.
9. This Court, in order to examine the argument
advanced on behalf of the appellants, has gone through the
testimony of the witnesses who have disclosed about the
commission of crime showing the culpability of the present
appellants in administering poison as also the torture for the
purpose of demand of dowry.
10. We have also considered the testimony of the
Investigating Officer who has deposed in his testimony that
none of the witnesses has disclosed about the torture or
assault given by the appellants along with the grandparents
and other members of the family and they administered
poison to her.
11. This Court, in view of such contradiction in the
testimonies of the witnesses and the Investigating Officer, is
of the view that the appellants have been able to make out a
prima facie case for suspension of sentence.
12. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application
being I.A. No. 8521 of 2024 stands allowed.
13. In consequence thereof, the appellants, above named,
are directed to be released on bail during pendency of the
instant appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with Session Trial
No.33 of 2009 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.257 of
2008.
14. 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.)
Birendra/
