Jharkhand High Court
Maksud @ Maksud Ansari @ Maqsood Ansari 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 (DB) No. 1077 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 8160 of 2024
---------
Maksud @ Maksud Ansari @ Maqsood Ansari, aged about 45
years, son of Late Nabi Mian, resident of Village-Lahangia, P.O.
Chunglo, P.S. Jamua, District-Giridih.
... ... 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. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
-----------
th
06/Dated: 15 October, 2024
I.A. No. 8160 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the
judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2024 and order of sentence
dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih
in connection with Sessions Trial No. 69 of 2021 arising out of
Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 282 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.
144 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced maximum to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.30,000/-.
2. Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted by referring to the prosecution version as available on
record that the conviction is based upon the circumstantial
evidence on the basis of the last seen theory.
3. It has been contended that the applicability of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, so far as the present appellant is concerned, is not
applicable reason being that the appellant had been arrested on
19.09.2020 as per the arrest memo and thereafter his statement
was recorded but it is also evident from the prosecution version
that the recovery of two knives and burned clothes has been
made on the disclosure made by the co-convict, namely, Ibrahim
Ansari and based upon that the seizure memo was prepared on
12.09.2020.
4. It has further been contended that the seizure memo since was
prepared on 12.09.2020 and as such, it cannot be disputed that
the co-convict, namely, Ibrahim Ansari, had been arrested prior
to 12.09.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that the present interlocutory application deserves to
be allowed by keeping the sentence in abeyance.
6. While on the other hand, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of
Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the
present interlocutory application filed for keeping the sentence in
abeyance by referring to impugned judgment of conviction and
various paragraphs of the lower court record.
7. It has been submitted that on the disclosure made in the
confessional statement of Ibrahim Ansari, co-convict, two knives
used in the said crime and burned clothes have been recovered
and he has also taken the name of the present appellant involved
in the commission of crime.
It has also been disclosed in the confessional statement
of Ibrahim Ansari that the deceased, namely, Sateyendra Nath
Mishra was having illicit relationship with the wife of the present
appellant, as such, it cannot be said that the present appellant was
not having any motive for the commission of crime.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State of Jharkhand, based upon the aforesaid premise
has submitted that the present interlocutory application is fit to be
rejected.
9. Upon this, Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that he does not intend to press the
instant interlocutory application.
10. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.
8160 of 2024 is dismissed as not pressed, as such, disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Saurabh/-
