Jharkhand High Court
Manki Bandiyan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 186 of 2023
------
1. Manki Bandiyan, son of Selai Bandiyan, aged about 65 years.
2. Jodde Bandiyan @ Jote, aged about 28 years, son of Manki Bandiyan,
Both are residents of Padampur, P.O. and P.S. Kharsawan, District-
Seraikella-Kharsawan. .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------
For the Appellant : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate
: Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr.Saket Kumar, APP
------
05/Dated: 25 October, 2024
th
I.A. No. 2230 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant No.2 namely Jodde Bandiyan @ Jote for suspension of
sentence in connection with the judgment of conviction dated
14.11.2022 and sentence dated 19.11.2022 passed in Sessions Trial
No. 245 of 2013 arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No. 72 of 2012
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Sections 147/148/149/452/341/323/364/302/201
of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Prevention of Witch (Diann)
Practices Act.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken the
ground that earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence has been
rejected by this Court vide order dated 23rd March 2023 passed in
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1481 of 2023.
3. The learned counsel by referring the said order dated 23rd March,
2023, has submitted that while rejecting the prayer for suspension
of sentence of the appellant, this Court has relied upon the testimony
of P.W.5 and the said testimony of P.W.5 has been taken as the sole
ground by this Court in order to rejecting the prayer of suspension of
sentence of the appellant, but the said PW-5 has not disclosed the
name of the present appellant. The learned Counsel has also read
out the testimony of PW-5 in entirety.
4. learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has
submitted that although while rejecting the prayer for suspension of
sentence while passing the order in interlocutory application being
IA No 1481 of 2023 the reference of testimony of PW-5 has been
taken but the same appears to be typographical error, since, it is not
the case of the appellant that none of the witnesses have disclosed
about his accountability in commission of crime.
5. It has further been submitted by referring to the testimony of PW-4,
who is the daughter of the deceased and the PW-5, was watching the
incidence, has specifically disclosed the name of the appellant and
has also deposed in the cross-examination that the present appellant
was armed with sword.
6. It has further been submitted by referring to the testimony of the
doctor that the injury is also shown to be from sharp cutting
weapon.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based upon the same, has
submitted that the testimony of PW-4 is already there and instead of
PW-4, the reference of PW-5 has been made in the said order and as
such it cannot be said that it is the case of no evidence so far as the
present appellant is concerned.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across
the order dated 23rd March 2023 passed by this Court in IA No.1481
of 2023.
9. We have taken the view by making reference of testimony of PW-5.
But PW-5 although has not disclosed the name of the appellant but
the PW-5 has referred the name of other accused persons including
the name of the appellant No.1. Further, the PW-5 has deposed that
his daughter (P.W.4) was also present at the place of occurrence and
she was watching the entire occurrence who has been examined as
PW-4.
10. We have examined the testimony the PW-4 and found that the PW-4
has taken the name of the appellant and further she had also
identified the present appellant on the Dock. Further, in paragraph
10 of her testimony she stated that the present appellant was armed
with sword by casting a specific attributability upon him.
11. It is evident that the reference of PW-5 has been made while passing
the order in IA No.1481 of 2023b but if the testimony of the PW-5
will be taken into consideration along with the testimony of PW-4,
we are of the view that it is not a case of no evidence as has been
submitted on behalf of the appellant,
12. This Court, has taken into consideration the specific attributability
shown to be established on the basis of the testimony of PW-4 and in
the cross-examination, she has deposed that the present applicant
was armed with the sword.
13. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that it is not
a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.
Hence the prayer of the suspension of the sentence is, hereby,
rejected.
14. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 2230 of 2024 stands rejected.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Samarth/
