Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9927 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 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. 888 of 2022
Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav, aged about 20 years, son of Bablu @ Bablu
@ Babloo Yadav, resident of village Pathalchapti, P.O. and P.S. Devipur,
District- Deoghar (Jharkhand)                           --- --- 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. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P

Order No.14 / Dated 15th October 2024

I.A. No. 718 of 2023

The aforesaid instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence of the appellant in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2022 and order of sentence dated 16.02.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2021 arising out of Devipur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar whereby and whereunder, the appellant along with other co-convict namely Babloo Yadav has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC while three other co-convicts were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 144/324/34 of the IPC and one another co-convict was convicted under Section 143 IPC only. Appellant and co-convict Bablu Yadav have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated, since, the cause of death shown i.e., due to assault given by the present appellant, is not substantiated.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted by taking a ground of parity with co-convict namely Bablu @ Baloo Yadav whose sentence has been suspended by order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 868 of 2022. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, particularly on the basis of the fact that the identically placed co- convict has already been directed to be released on bail, has made submission for suspension of sentence, so far as the present appellant is concerned.

4. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended by referring to the testimonies of P.W.6 Sarlu Sharma and P.W.7 Bichitra, who are the injured witnesses and have supported the prosecution version of assault with a knife by the appellant thrice on the abdomen of the deceased Jai Kishore Sharma, which is the cause shown by the Doctor for death of the deceased.

5. It has further been contended that the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 868 of 2022 cannot be said to apply herein, since, the case of co-convict Bablu Yadav cannot be said to be identically placed, reason being that both P.W.6 and P.W.7, being the injured witnesses, have consistently supported the prosecution version. They have deposed with respect to the attributability of the said Bablu Yadav, appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 868 of 2022, who is said to have given a 'farsa' blow on the ear of one Arvind Sharma. Therefore, contention has been raised that the Arvind Sharma, although had sustained injury but he is not the deceased rather the deceased Jai Kishore Sharma died due to knife blow on his abdomen and chest given thrice by the present appellant. Therefore, case of the co-convict Babloo Yadav cannot be said to be identically placed to that of the present appellant.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone across the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment. This Court has also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as also the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 868 of 2022 in the case of co-convict Babloo Yadav.

7. The arguments, which have been advanced on behalf of the appellant mainly based upon the testimony of P.W.8 Arvind Kumar Sharma. P.W.8 has deposed in his testimony, particularly at para 6 that

2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 888 of 2022 the deceased Jai Kishore Sharma had been assaulted by Babloo Yadav i.e. appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 868 of 2022 and the present appellant Rahul Yadav.

8. This Court, in order to appreciate the said stand has gone through to the testimony of P.W.8 in its entirety. Although, in the examination in chief at para 7 he had deposed that co-convicts Bablu Yadav and the appellant Rahul Yadav had assaulted the deceased but in his cross examination, he has remained inconsistent, since, it has been deposed by him that in order to save his life he fled away and gone to the village and thereafter rushed to the hospital. As such, what has been contended on behalf of the appellant is mainly on the basis of the testimony recorded in the examination-in-chief but in cross examination P.W.8 deposed that due to fear and to save his life he fled away to village and thereafter gone to hospital and hence, he cannot be said to be the eye witness.

9. This Court has further appreciated the testimony of P.W.6 and P.W.7, who are admittedly the injured witness. P.W.6 in his statement recorded at para 5 has very specifically stated that appellant Rahul Yadav had assaulted the deceased with knife thrice on his abdomen and chest. It is further evident from para 6 of the testimony of P.W.6 that co-convict Babloo Yadav had assaulted Arvind Kumar Sharma by giving 'farsa' blow near his ear. P.W.7, who is also one of the injured witness, has deposed at para 4 that the appellant Rahul Yadav had assaulted the deceased Jai Kishore Sharma with a knife over his abdomen and chest while Babloo Yadav had assaulted by a 'farsa' near the ear of said Arvind Kumar Sharma (P.W.8).

10. This Court has also gone through the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court with respect to co-convict Babloo Yadav wherein the fact about the assault given to the deceased with 'farsa' near the ear of the deceased but the consideration has been made by the Co- ordinate Bench by going through the post mortem report, which revealed that no injury was found on the ear of the deceased and in fact the deceased had died on account of the head injuries.

11. This Court has further gone through the testimony of the Dr. Ravi

3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 888 of 2022 Kumar ( P.W.12), who has opined with respect to the cause of death of the deceased, which is due to hemorrhagic shock due to injuries found over the abdomen and chest of the deceased.

12. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion is of the view that the factual aspect which has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench, cannot be applicable in this case in view of the categorical statement of P.W.6 and P.W.7.

13. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that the present appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence.

14. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 718 of 2023 is rejected.

15. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit, since the criminal appeal is pending before this Court.

16. I.A. No. 718 of 2023 stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty

4 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 888 of 2022