Bajrangi Sonar Aged About 61 Years Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9977 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bajrangi Sonar Aged About 61 Years Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1935 of 2023

1. Bajrangi Sonar aged about 61 years son of Kailash Sonar
2. Shankar Sonar aged about 65 years son of Kailash Sonar
3. Kailash Sonar aged about 90 years son of late Dasrath Sonar
4. Sujit Sonar aged about 36 years son of Bajrangi Sonar
   All residents of village- Mahadeodih, P.O. Palganj, P.S. - Pirtand,
   District- Giridih                  .....        Appellants
                           Versus
The State of Jharkhand                ....           Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

For the Appellants :   Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate
For the State      :   Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, APP
                         -----

th Order No.8: Dated 16 October 2024

I.A. No.10364 of 2024

The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of

sentence on behalf of appellant No.4 Sujit Sonar during the pendency of this

appeal, which has been filed against the Judgment of Conviction dated

04.10.2023 and order of sentence dated 07.10.2023 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-III, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.237 of 2022, arising out of

Pirtand P.S. Case No.06 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the appellants have

been convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the

offence committed under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and in default of

payment of fine, they further directed to undergo S.I. for one year and further

R.I. for ten years each and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence committed

under Sections 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine,

they were further directed to serve S.I. for six months and further R.I. for a term

of one year each for the offence under Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code.

1 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1935 of 2023

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant Sujit Sonar by making

the submission that even the prosecution version could be accepted as no

attributability has been said to be committed by the appellant making clear that

as per the prosecution version, the present appellant Sujit sonar was having with

the lathi, but as per the testimony of the doctor, no injury is said to have been

caused due to hard, blunt substance.

3. It has also been contended that the identically placed co-convict, namely

Kailash Sonar has been directed to be released on bail by the order dated

06.08.2024 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in this Criminal Appeal.

4. Further submission has been made that the occurrence had happened

inside the house among the family members, which included, father, brothers,

sons, nephews. As such, the presence of applicant cannot be disputed since the

entire occurrence had occurred inside the house.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground,

has submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence of the present applicant, i.e.

appellant No.4 namely Sujit Sonar may be suspended.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the

prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended that the argument,

which has been advanced that one co-convict, namely Kailash Sonar, has been

directed to be released on bail after suspension of sentence by the order dated

06.08.2024 passed by the coordinate bench, will not be applicable, so far as the

case of the present appellant is concerned, since, said Kailash Sonar co-convict

had been directed to be released on bail on the ground of age, who at the relevant

time was 90 years of age.

7. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the present

appellant was all along present at the place of occurrence, and as such, based

2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1935 of 2023 upon the aforesaid evidence, the appellant has been convicted, cannot be said

that there is no attributability, said not to have been committed by the appellant.

As such, it is not a case, where the sentence is to be suspended.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the findings

recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the

testimony available in the lower court record, which has been called for by this

court by order dated 30th January 2024.

9. We have considered the prosecution version as also the testimonies of the

witnesses. Thus, it is evident that the quarrel had occurred among the family

members, which included the father, the brothers, Sons and nephews. It has also

come in the course of evidence that the place of occurrence was inside the house.

The specific allegation of assault has been attributed among one Bajirangi sonar,

who had given blow by means of sword and Shankar Sonar, who has given blow

by means of farsa. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the appellant,

namely Sujit Sonar, was having with lathi, the Court in order to appreciate the

argument advanced on behalf of the appellant with respect to the issue of assault

said to be given by the present appellant, as also considering the testimony of the

doctor, who has been examined as PW-10, it is evident therefrom that there is no

reference of any injury said to have been committed due to hard, blunt substance

which includes the lathi, also which, the nature of injury has been shown to be

the incised wound, having different nature, so far as the depth is concerned, as

per the opinion comes that the injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon.

Admittedly, as per the prosecution version, Bajrangi Sonar, who had given blow

by sword and Shankar Sonar, who had given blow by farsa, but there is no

injury said to have been given by the present applicant, who was armed with

lathi.

3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1935 of 2023

10. This Court is further of the view that what has been contended by the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor that this case is not identically same with

the case of co-convict Kailash Sonar, who has been granted bail by passing the

order of suspension of sentence by considering his old age i.e. 90 years, but even

ignoring the same and considering the attributability, said to have been

committed by the present applicant as per the evidence brought before the

learned trial court, is of the view that the same is not found in corroboration

with the evidence of the doctor. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts,

prima facie of the view that the present appellant, i.e. appellant No.4 Sujit Sonar

has been able to make out his case for suspension of sentence.

11. In consequence thereof, the appellant No.4 Sujit Sonar is directed to be

released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.237 of 2022,

arising out of Pirtand P.S. Case No.06 of 2022.

12. Any observation made as above will not prejudice the case of the

appellant, since the appeal is pending for final hearing.

13. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.10364 of

2024 stands allowed and disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Navneet Kumar, J.) R.Kumar

4 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1935 of 2023