Jharkhand High Court
Jaswant Saw @ Jashvant Shaw @ Ganesh Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 407 of 2024
Jaswant Saw @ Jashvant Shaw @ Ganesh Saw, aged about 48 years,
son of Basant Saw @ Ganesh Saw, resident of Chhatatand, P.O.
Kusunda, Hatia Patti, P.S. Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand-
828116.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Neha Agrawal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. N.K. Gupta, Advocate
----
I.A. No. 6789 of 2024
05/21.11.2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
2. This appeal is already admitted and Trial Court Record has
been received.
3. I.A. No. 6789 of 2024 has been filed for suspension of
sentence and release the appellant on bail, during the pendency of this
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been convicted by judgment dated 30.05.2024 and
sentenced by order dated 04.06.2024 by the learned Sessions Judge,
Dhanbad in Sessions Trial (S.T.) No. 944 of 2022 arising out of
Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 90 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. No. 2294 of
2022. He further submits that the appellant has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the
offence under section 307 of I.P.C. and in default the appellant was
directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of one year. He submits
that other sentences are also there in different sections however it was
ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses out of which two
witnesses namely, P.W.1-Sandeep Kumar and P.W.7-Dinanath Sharma
have turned hostile. He draws the attention of the Court to statement of
doctor who is P.W.5 and submits that doctor has opined that the injury is
simple in nature. He further submits that in course of trial prosecution
has filed a petition to examine the nephew of the informant however,
lateron the said application was withdrawn. He submits that there is no
eye witness to the occurrence. According to him the alleged knife has not
been sent to forensic science laboratory and inspite of that the appellant
has been convicted and sentenced.
6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits
that the appellant has not completed half of the sentence.
7. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the learned
trial court has considered the injury thereafter passed the judgment. He
submits that there is allegation against the appellant in view of that I.A.
may kindly be rejected.
8. Considering that two witnesses namely, P.W.1-Sandeep
Kumar and P.W.7-Dinanath Sharma have turned hostile, doctor who is
P.W.5 has opined that the injury is simple in nature, in course of trial
prosecution has filed a petition to examine the nephew of the informant
however, lateron the said application was withdrawn, there is no eye
witness to the occurrence and alleged knife has not been sent to forensic
science laboratory, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, the above named appellant is directed to be released on
bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each, to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial
(S.T.) No. 944 of 2022 arising out of Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 90 of 2022,
corresponding to G.R. No. 2294 of 2022.
9. The aforesaid interlocutory application is allowed and
disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
Satyarthi
