Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Rao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 November, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.442 of 2024
------
Krishna Rao, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Raju Rao, R/o-
Ranikudar, Kadma, P.O.-&P.S.-Kadma, Jamshedpur, District-East
Singhbhum. .... .... 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. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
Mr. Raj Shekhar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP
------
09/Dated: 25.11.2024
I.A. (Cr.) No.10024 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 18.12.2023 passed by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge-I at Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, in
connection with S.T. No.338(A) of 2005, arising out of Bistupur P.S.
Case No.88 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.07 of 2020, whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. of six months for
the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and R.I. for life along with
fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for another
six months for the offence under Section 120B of the IPC.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a
case where the appellant was not named in the FIR and his name
has been surfaced in course of investigation and thereafter, charge-
sheet was submitted against him along with others.
3. The submission has been made that it is a case where the
informant, who has been examined as P.W.4, has not identified the
appellant, since, no TIP has ever been conducted. The submission
has also been made that basis of conviction which has been
considered by the learned trial Court is that the informant, P.W.4, has
identified the appellant in the dock.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that in
absence of any TIP and merely on the basis of identification of the
present appellant in the dock cannot be said to be sufficient evidence
to connect the culpability said to be committed by the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted by
referring to the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.350 of 2017 with analogous cases on
31.08.2024, whereby and whereunder, the identically placed co-
convicts, against whom, the identical nature of allegation has been
alleged and the basis of conviction is also the identification in the
dock by the informant, P.W.4, have been acquitted.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that the case therefore is fit for suspension of
sentence during pendency of the appeal.
7. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension
of sentence.
8. It has been contended by referring to the testimony of
witnesses who all along have supported the prosecution version and
as such, it is not a fit case where the prayer for suspension of
sentence is to be suspended.
9. He has also taken the ground that the appellant remained
absconder fairly for the period of 14 years and by virtue of the same,
the trial has been split up and thereafter, the judgment of conviction
has been passed.
10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone across the finding recorded by the learned Court in the
impugned order as also the testimony of witnesses along with
exhibits as available in the Trial Court Records.
11. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on
behalf of the parties, has considered the testimony of the informant,
P.W.4 in the pretext of the fact that the appellant is not named in the
FIR, however, his name has come in course of investigation, based
upon which, the charge-sheet has been submitted.
12. Admittedly, the prosecution has not put the appellant in TIP and
P.W.4, the informant has identified the appellant in the dock.
13. The law is well settled that the identification in the dock cannot
be said to be substantial evidence to connect the culpability said to
be committed by one or the other in the commission of crime.
14. The ground has been taken on behalf of the learned APP that
the appellant has absconded but since, we are considering the issue
of suspension of sentence and as such, it will not be proper for this
Court to go on the issue of absconding of the appellant, rather, to go
on the issue on merit so as to come to the conclusion regarding
prima-facie case.
15. This Court, considering the aforesaid and taking into
consideration the testimony of P.W.4, the informant, who has
identified the appellant in the dock, is of the view that the same
cannot be said to be sufficient evidence to connect the culpability
alleged to be committed by the appellant.
16. This Court, in view thereof, prima-facie is of the view that it is a
fit case for suspension of sentence.
17. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. (Cr.)
No.10024 of 2024 stands allowed.
18. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-
I at Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, in connection with S.T. No.338(A)
of 2005, arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No.88 of 2005,
corresponding to G.R. No.07 of 2020.
19. 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/-
