Jharkhand High Court
Nageshwar Mahto @ Nageshwar Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1404 of 2023
---------
Nageshwar Mahto @ Nageshwar Kumar Mahto, aged about 26 years, son of
Hiraman Mahto, resident of village: Nawatand, PO & PS: Bishnugarh,
District- Hazaribag ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
-----------
th
06/Dated: 8 April, 2025
I.A. No.12528 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for
suspension of sentence dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2015 whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324, 307/149, 302/149 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offence
u/s 302/149 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has further been
directed to undergo R.I of 6 months. The appellant has also been sentenced to
undergo R.I of 01 year for the offence under Section 147 of IPC, R.I of 02
years for the offence u/s 148 of IPC, R.I of 06 months for the offence u/s
323/149 of IPC, R.I of 02 years for the offence u/s 324 of the IPC, R.I of 10
years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence u/s 307/149 of IPC and in
default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to undergo
R.I of 6 months.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant is fully innocent and no cogent material has come to connect the
complicity said to be committed by the present appellant.
3. It has been contended that it is only on the basis of the insertion of Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction is based without any specific
attributability if the entire testimony of the witnesses will be taken into
consideration. It has also been submitted that the nature of allegation alleged
Page | 1
against the appellant is not so serious warranting the appellant to go for
rigorous imprisonment for life.
4. The ground of custody has also been taken.
5. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is a
fit case for suspension of sentence.
6. While on the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant.
7. It has been contended that the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
identically placed co-convicts, namely, Shyamlal Mahto, Narayan Mahto,
Chhakan Prasad Mahto and Dileshwar Mahto who are appellants in Cr.
Appeal (D.B) No. 812 of 2022, have been considered by the co-ordinate
Bench and the said prayer has been rejected vide order dated 30.01.2024
passed in I.A. No. 2149 of 2023.
8. It has been submitted that the case of the present appellant also fell for
consideration before the co-ordinate Bench in the I.A. No. 8313 of 2023
[Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1404 of 2023], but the said interlocutory application
has not been pressed as would be evident from the same order i.e., the order
dated 30.01.2024.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the
testimony of the witnesses as available in the Trial Court Records and other
material exhibits appended therewith.
11. We have considered the testimony of the injured witness particularly P.W.3
(son of the deceased) who has fully supported the prosecution version
thereby disclosing the name of the present appellant along with Shyamlal
Mahto, Narayan Mahto, Chhakan Prasad Mahto and Dileshwar Mahtot has
also come in his testimony that all the persons have assaulted the deceased.
The reference of the assault which has been sustained by the deceased has
Page | 2
fully been supported by the testimony of the doctors who have been
examined as P.W.7 and P.W.13. P.W.13 is the doctor who has conducted the
post-mortem and proved the post-mortem report.
12.The prayer for suspension of sentence of the identically placed co-convicts
has been taken into consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench while
considering the said prayer in I.A. No. 2149 of 2023 filed in Cr. Appeal
(D.B) No.812 of 2022, which has been rejected on the ground that the case
of the prosecution has fully been supported by the witnesses.
13.This Court, considering the attributability of the present appellant identical
to that of the other co-convicts and also taken into consideration the
testimony of the witnesses available in the trial court record, is of the view
that it is not a fit case where the sentence of the appellant is to be suspended.
14.Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 12528 of
2024 stands dismissed, as such, disposed of.
15.It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the
case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Amar/-
Page | 3
