Jharkhand High Court
Balram Munda @ Ajay Munda Aged 40 Years ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1407 of 2023
with
I.A. No. 10322 of 2024
---------
Balram Munda @ Ajay Munda aged 40 years S/o late Budhwa Munda
R/o village- Bandugarha P.O. & P.S.- Arki, Dist-Khunti
....... 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. Amit Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.
-----------
rd
08/Dated: 3 October, 2024
I.A. No. 10322 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1)
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for keeping the
sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction
dated 18.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2023 passed by the
learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-II at Khunti in Arki P.S. Case
No. 03 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 45 of 2015,
SessionsTrial No. 261 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
has been convicted and sentenced with the maximum punishment of life
for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a
case where the conviction is based upon the presumption since no
evidence has been said to corroborate the culpability of the appellant
making out a case to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.
3. It has been contended that most of the witnesses have become hostile.
The PW-2, who had been considered to be an independent witness, has
also not disclosed the name of the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground,
has submitted that therefore it is a fit case for suspension of sentence in
Page 1
connection with judgment and sentence dated 18.03.2023 and
29.03.2023 passed by the learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-II at
Khunti in Arki P.S. Case No. 03 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 45 of 2015, Session Trial No. 261 of 2019.
5. While on the other hand, Ms. Anuradha Sahay, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail by contending that it is wrong on the part of the learned counsel
for the appellant to take the ground that the PW-2, the informant, had not
identified, rather it would be evident from the deposition as recorded in
Paragraph-3 that she has identified the name of Ranga Munda alias
Jarang, Sohrai Munda, Boyda Pahan, Lodro Lohra, Basudeo Pramanik,
so far as the others are concerned, she had deposed that she will identify
the other persons who were involved in committing murder of her father.
She has also disclosed that the appellant as the member of the Maoist
group and prior to the aforesaid incident, her brother was also killed.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that in view thereof it is not a case where sentence
may be suspended.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the
finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order as also
the testimony of the witnesses and the investigating officer and the other
documents available on record.
8. It is evident from the record that First Information Report was instituted
on the basis of the detailed report of the PW-2, who is the daughter of
the deceased namely Raja Bhengra and the eye witness.
9. It appears from the testimony of the PW-2 that she was present at the
time of commission of occurrence and had identified Ranga Munda alias
Jarang, Sohrai Munda, Boyda Pahan, Lodro Lohra, Basudeo Pramanik.
10. It is further evident from the deposition recorded in Paragraph No. 3 that
she has disclose that she will identify the other accused persons who
were along with the Ranga Munda alias Jarang, Sohrai Munda, Boyda
Pahan, Lodro Lohra, Basudeo Pramanik.
Page 2
11. This Court, considering the testimony of PW-2, who remained consistent
in the cross-examination, is of the view that this is not a fit case where
the sentence is to be suspended.
12. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 10322
of 2024, is hereby, rejected.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Samarth/-
Page 3
