Jharkhand High Court
Guddu Pasi @ Umesh Pasi 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.919 of 2024
-------
1. Guddu Pasi @ Umesh Pasi, Aged about 30 years, Son of
Ramawatar Pasi.
2. Ramawatar Pasi, aged about 73 years, Son of Late Jitu Pasi.
3. Sunita Devi, aged about 27 years, Wife Sri Umesh Pasi.
4. Mahesh Pasi, aged about 37 years, Son of Ramawatar Pasi.
All the resident of Village - Gurha, Chainpur, P.O. & P.S. -
Chainpur, District - Palamau (Jharkhand).
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
-------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Adv.
-------
Order No.07/Dated- 08.04.2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant No.4 viz. Mahesh Pasi under Section 430 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated
05.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd
Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with S.T. Case No.111 of 2021,
arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.468 of 2020 (corresponding to
G.R. Case No.718 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
No.4 has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 and
201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.7500/- for the offence
punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and in default of
payment of fine, further S.I. for three months and R.I. for five years
with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section
201/34 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for
two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant No.4 that it is a
case where the conviction is based upon the circumstantial evidence
purely on the basis of the testimony of P.W.3 who cannot be said to
be the trustworthy witness, as he has deposed in the cross-
examination that he has not informed to anyone regarding the
occurrence of dragging of the deceased by the present appellant
No.4.
3. It has been contended that save and except the testimony of
P.W.3, no evidence has come, so far as, the attributability said to be
committed by the present appellant No.4.
4. It has further been submitted by referring to the testimony of
P.W.3, herein the attributability has been casted upon Umesh @
Guddu Pasi, on the basis of whose confession, the incriminating
tangi, that is the weapon of offence has been recovered.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.4, based upon
the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is, therefore, a fit case
for suspension of sentence.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the informant have jointly opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence.
7. It has been contended that the P.W.3, being the independent
witness, has fully supported the prosecution version, since, the
name of appellant No.4 has specifically been disclosed in paragraph
No.1 in the examination-in-chief.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony of witnesses in the Trial
Court record and other material exhibits available therein.
9. This Court, in order to appreciate the arguments in a case where
the conviction is based upon the circumstantial evidence
particularly on the basis of the last seen which is based upon the
testimony of P.W.3, so far as the culpability said to be committed by
the present appellant is concerned, it has been deposed by the
P.W.3 in paragraph No.1 that he has seen 3-4 persons namely
Umesh Pasi @ Guddu, Mahesh Pasi, the present appellant No.4 and
one another person Ramawatar Pasi, who is the father of Umesh
Pasi @ Guddu and Mahesh Pasi, the present appellant No.4 along
with two other persons were dragging the deceased.
10. It has been deposed by him that in the morning, he has seen the
dead body of the Ajay Pasi, the deceased. We have considered the
trustworthiness of the present witness, considering the fact that the
conviction is based upon the last seen theory.
11. This Court, while going through the testimony of P.W.3 as
recorded in paragraph No.5 in the cross-examination, wherein it
has been deposed by the P.W.3 that even though he had seen the
dragging of the deceased by these appellants namely Umesh Pasi @
Guddu, Mahesh Pasi, the present appellant No.4 and Ramawatar
Pasi along with two other persons but he has not informed the said
incident to the family members of the deceased.
12. This Court considers the said conduct of the P.W.3 not natural,
since, as per him, his house is just 200 metre away from the house
of the deceased.
13. We have also considered the testimony of Investigating Officer
and found therefrom that the culpability of Umesh Pasi @ Guddu
has been found to be there by the learned Trial Court on the basis of
applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, since, incriminating
weapon, i.e., axe along with the blue coloured Jeans having with the
blood stained marked as Ext.P-8 has been found on the disclosure
of Umesh Pasi @ Guddu.
14. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that it is a fit
case for suspension of sentence where the appellant No.4 has been
able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence.
15. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.
3314 of 2025 stands allowed.
16. In consequence thereof, the appellant No.4 namely Mahesh
Pasi, is directed to be released on bail during pendency of the
instant appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Palamau at
Daltonganj in connection with S.T. Case No.111 of 2021, arising out
of Chainpur P.S. Case No.468 of 2020 (corresponding to G.R. Case
No.718 of 2021.
17. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin/
