Jharkhand High Court
Hiralal Saw @ Hiralal Kumar Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 306 of 2024
1. Hiralal Saw @ Hiralal Kumar Saw, aged about 23 years, son
of Mahadev Saw
2. Prakash Kumar Saw @ Prakash Saw, aged about 23 years,
son of Tulsi Saw.
Both residents of village-Barki Bergi, Chhotki Bergi, P.O.
Chalmo, P.S. Barahmasiya, District-Giridih.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate
: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate
--------
Order No.08/dated 24.10.2024
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad J:
I.A.(Cr.) No.10538 of 2024
The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed
under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 praying therein for grant of bail during the pendency of
this appeal in connection with Children Case No. 08 of 2019,
arising out Dumri P.S. Case No. 63 of 2017 by which the
appellants have been convicted for the offence committed
under Sections 148, 323/149, 504/149, and 302/149 of the
Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for
02 years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for
01 year under Sections 323/149 & 504/149 of the Indian
Penal Code and R.I. for life under Section 302/149 of the
Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, appellants will further undergo R.I. for 01
year.
2. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellants has submitted that it is a case where the conviction
of the appellants who are juvenile, in between the age of 16 to
18 years, whose trial has been separated to that of the other
adult who are facing trial in the regular competent court of
criminal jurisdiction but herein if the testimony of the
witnesses will be taken into consideration there is no direct
evidence upon these appellants of making assault over the
deceased.
3. It has been contended that the entire case is based upon
the testimony of the injured witnesses i.e. P.W. 1, P.W.2 &
P.W.3. But all these three witnesses have been examined by
the Doctor, P.W.10 after lapse of about one month. The nature
of injury has been found to be simple. The question, therefore,
has been raised that the occurrence as per the prosecution
version is dated 27.07.2017 in which the injured witnesses i.e.
P.W.1 Puran Sao, P.W.2 Madan Kumar Jha and P.W.3
Dhaneshwar Saw have sustained injuries but they have been
treated by the Doctor, P.W.10 merely one month of the injury
which is dated 28.07.2017. As such the presence of these
three witnesses are in doubt which is the basis of the
conviction.
4. While on other hand Mr. Saket Kumar, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned
Counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence.
5. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties
and gone across the findings recorded by the learned
court-below in the impugned Judgment as also the testimony
available in the Lower Court Record along with other
documents which have been called for by this Court vide order
dated 06.08.2024.
6. It is evident from the impugned Judgment that the basis
of conviction of the appellants is upon the testimony of P.W.1,
P.W.2 and P.W.3 who have been considered to be the
eye-witness since they have sustained injuries in course of the
occurrence took place on 27-28.07.2017. These three injured
have been treated by Doctor, P.W.10 merely one month after
the date of the occurrence. It is further evident that there is no
allegation against these two appellants of assaulting the
deceased, rather, the allegation is against Suresh Saw.
7. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court prima facie is
of the view that it is a fit case where the sentence is to be kept
in abeyance.
8. Accordingly, I.A.(Cr.) No.10538 of 2024 is allowed.
9. In consequence thereof, the appellants are directed to be
released on bail, during the pendency of the Cr. Appeal, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Special Judge-cum- Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in
connection with Children Case No. 08 of 2019, arising out of
Dumri P.S. Case No. 63 of 2017.
10. In view thereof, I.A. (Cr.) No.10538 of 2024 stands
disposed of.
11. Any observation made in the order will not prejudice the
case of the parties, since, the Cr. Appeal is lying pending for
its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S.
