Jharkhand High Court
Shiveshwar Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 965 of 2024
--------
Shiveshwar Munda, S/o Balram Munda aged about 24 years, R/o
Village-Kankatta, P.O. Sataki, P.S. Angara, District-Ranchi.
.. ... 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. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP
--------
st
Order No. 04/ Dated: 21 October, 2024
IA No.8997 of 2024
1. The instant Appeal has been listed for passing appropriate order
on the instant Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of appellant
under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of sentence/grant of bail during the pendency of the instant
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 965 of 2024 in connection with S.T. No. 284 of
2020 arising out of Angara P.S. 62 of 2020 against the judgment of
conviction dated 13.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 21.05.2024
passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section
302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and
to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 03 months. Similarly, for the offence
punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 7 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment
of fine, further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months
and the period already undergone by him in the custody was directed to
be set off under Section 428 of Cr. P.C. All the sentences were directed
to run concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the case is
based upon the circumstantial evidence on the applicability of the
provision as under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It has been contended
that the prosecution version is that dead body was recovered on the basis
of confession made by the appellant from the well. The learned counsel
for the appellant has submitted by referring to the testimony of the
investigating officer who has been examined as PW-6 wherein he has
deposed that the dead body was recovered on the disclosure statement
made by the brother-in-law of the deceased (Devar). As such, contention
has been raised that when the investigating officer has come out with the
version that the dead body was already recovered from the well then
where is the question of applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act
so as to say that the dead body was recovered on the disclosure made by
the appellant in the confession so recorded, hence, it is a fit case where
sentence is to be suspended.
3. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and has submitted that the conviction is based upon
circumstantial evidence leading to recovery which would be evident
from the confessional statement so recorded of the appellant. As such, it
is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the
disclosure is not based upon the confession made by the appellant, hence
it is not a fit case where sentence is to be suspended.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court as also the
testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Record and
the other exhibits.
5. It is evident from the impugned judgment which is based upon
the circumstantial evidence by applying the principal as stipulated under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, since the learned Trial Court has
accepted the prosecution version of the recovery of the dead body from
the well which is on the basis of the confession of the accused.
6. This Court has found from the testimony of the investigating
officer that dead body was recovered on 24.05.2020 while the said
confessional statement was recorded on 25.05.2020.
7. As such, this Court is of the view that what has been projected by
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 965 of 2024
the prosecution with respect to recovery of the dead body on the basis of
the disclosure so made by the appellant is not tenable.
7. This Court is therefore of the view that it is a fit case where the
impugned order needs to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
9. 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 Additional Judicial
Commissioner-X, Ranchi in connection with S.T. No. 284 of 2020
arising out of Angara P.S. 62 of 2020.
10. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No.8997 of 2024 stands disposed of.
11. 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
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 965 of 2024
