Anuj Chouhan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4764 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Anuj Chouhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 430 of 2024
                                   With
                         I.A. No. 13771 of 2024
                                  ---------

1. Anuj Chouhan, aged about 40 years, son of Sitaram Chouhan

2. Rohit Chouhan, aged about 27 years Both son of Sitaram Chouhan and resident of Kankani 4 Number, IPS Colony, P.O. and P.S. Loyabad, District-Dhanbad, 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 Appellant : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Boby, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Advocate Ms. Chanchal Chhaya, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate

-----------

th 14/Dated: 16 April, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad J I.A. No. 13771 of 2024:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of appellant no.2 for suspension of sentence dated 29.01.2024 passed in S.T. Case No. 184 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-

I, Dhanbad in connection with Loyabad P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1929 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no.2 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant no.2 has further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per fardbeyan of informant is that on 02.05.2021 at about 10.00 A.M the informant was taking lunch at home along with his family members. In the meantime, informant's neighbour Anuj Chouhan started cleaning out drain water in front of

his house. Informant's elder brother Raushan Pd. Chouhan made objection then he was assaulted by the accused. Informant and his mother Rita Devi also came out from home and saw that accused Anuj Chouhan armed with knife and he is giving knife blow to informant's elder brother. Accused Rohit Chouhan caught hold neck and right hand of his elder brother. Accused Sita Ram Chouhan had also caught hold left hand and neck of informant's elder brother.

Accused Dipak Chouhan and Saroj Chouhan had caught hold both legs of informant's elder brother. Informant's elder brother was lying on earth covered with blood.

3. It has been alleged that informant and his mother went there to save his elder brother. Rohit Chouhan gave knife blow on chest of informant. Informant fell down and he was trying to anyhow save his elder brother. Accused Saroj Chouhan, Dipak Chouhan @ Sonu, Sitaram Chouhan, Balaji Chouhan and Savitri Devi and Anuj Chouhan gave four to five knife blows upon back and shoulder of informant. Informant's mother raised alarm thereafter, neighbours assembled there. The accused persons went away when neighbours assembled there. Villagers took informant and his elder brother Roushan Pd. Chouhan to police station and thereafter they were taken to Dhanbad for treatment. The accused persons inflicted injury to the informant and his elder brother Roushan Pd. Chouhan by means of knife with intent to kill them. Informant's elder brother Raushan Pd. Chouhan died in the way of Dhanbad.

4. The police case bearing Loyabad P.S. Case No. 30/2021 dated 02.05.2021 has been registered on the basis of fardbayan of informant Ratnesh Prasad Chouhan for the offence punishable U/ss 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against seven (7) named accused persons, namely, Anuj Chouhan, Rohit Chouhan (present applicant), Sitaram Chouhan, Deepak Chouhan, Saroj Chouhan, Balajee Chouhan and Savitri Devi.

5. Further Chargesheet bearing Charge-sheet No. 50/2021 dated 25.07.2021 is submitted against accused persons including the

present applicant U/s 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and further investigation against accused Deepak Chouhan @ Sonu was kept open. The Cognizance of the offence has been taken against the accused vide order dated 05.10.2021.

6. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution has examined altogether 16 witnesses and the learned trial court after appreciation of evidence has found the charges levelled against the present applicant/appellant no.2 along with other accused proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, the present applicant/appellant no.2 has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

7. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the applicant/appellant with the prayer for the suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

Argument on behalf of the appellant:

8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant no.2 that on earlier occasion also, the appellant no.2 had moved before this Court for suspension of sentence by filing I.A. No. 8058 of 2024 which had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.09.2024.

9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the FIR was instituted after inordinate delay which makes the prosecution's case doubtful.

10.It has been contended that the learned trial court has overlooked that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence on record since as per the informant version, knife was used in giving assault but the doctor has found the cause of injury to be caused through hard and blunt substance.

11.It has also been contended that out of the same set of evidences, other accused persons have been acquitted which shows non- application of judicial mind by the learned trial court.

12.It has been contended that the applicant/appellant no.2 is languishing in judicial custody since 03.05.2021.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant no.2, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended so that the applicant/appellant no.2 be released on bail.

Argument on behalf of the respondent-State:

14. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant for grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.

15. It has been submitted that an unlawful assembly was formed by the appellant and other accused persons and assaulted the informant and his brother which has been fully corroborated and supported by the prosecution witnesses.

16. It has further been submitted that the knife which has been used in the commission of crime has been recovered, on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, namely, Anuj Chouhan, from a water tank of his house.

17. It has also been submitted, so far as the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the inconsistency/contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, that the same is not fatal for the prosecution case since if the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses will be taken into consideration, then the alleged charges will be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

18. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case where the appellant deserves the privilege of bail by suspension of sentence.

Analysis:

19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and

have carefully gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses and the material placed on record.

20. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it needs to refer herein the settled position of law that the Court considering an application for suspension of sentence is to consider only the prima facie merits of the appeal. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preet Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645 wherein it has been observed that the Court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC.

21. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position this Court is now adverting to the admitted factual aspects of the instant case.

22. Admittedly, in the instant case for alleged homicide, the police case bearing Loyabad P.S. Case No. 30/2021 dated 02.05.2021 has been registered on the basis of fardbayan of informant Ratnesh Prasad Chouhan for the offence punishable U/s 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against seven (07) named accused persons including the present applicant/appellant no.2. However, out of the seven named accused persons, one accused had died during trial and one accused Deepak Chouhan has not faced the trial along with other accused persons.

23. It needs to refer herein that learned trial court had not found the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt under sections U/s 341/149, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC against the three accused persons Sitaram Chauhan, Savitri Devi and Saroj Chauhan and accordingly they were acquitted from all alleged

charges. Further the accused/appellant no.1 namely Anuj Chauhan has been convicted U/s 302 IPC only.

24. It needs to refer that the present applicant/appellant no.2 has been convicted by the learned trial court under Section 307 IPC only and the charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 302 IPC has not been found to be proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts against present applicant/appellant no.2, namely, Rohit Chauhan.

25. Thus, it is evident from aforesaid factual aspect that the learned trial court has not found the ingredient of the common object as stipulated under Section 149 of the IPC, rather the convicted accused including the present applicant/appellant no.2 has been held liable for their individual act.

26. The main allegation against the present applicant is that he had assaulted by knife to the informant namely Ratnesh Pd. Chauhan. The said informant has stated that he is unable to move without any support and feels trouble to discharge urine and stool. He has stated in his further statement that present applicant/appellant no.2 had given him knife blow injury which was corroborated by investigating officer i.e., P.W.-10 in para-39 of his cross examination.

Further it is alleged specifically in FIR that the present applicant/appellant no.2 had given knife blow injury to the said informant when he rushed to save his brother.

27. But the aforesaid part of testimony and allegation has not been substantiated by the medical evidence since as per the evidence of Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh, P.W.-11, the informant has received some injury caused by hard and blunt object, therefore this particular finding of the doctor creates suspicion regarding the veracity of the alleged culpability of the present applicant/appellant no.2.

28. Further, it appears that the learned trial court itself has doubted the prosecution story by observing that the entire family members including the father, mother, grandfather and all brothers have been implicated in this case, therefore, the exaggerated version of witnesses to implicate the entire family members is creating doubt.

29. Further investigating officer has stated that he went to the house of accused along with Anuj Chouhan and as per his confessional statement, he recovered a knife from a Water Drum. Thus, from this part of testimony it is evident that only one knife has been recovered and seized in this case but the said knife was not sent for its examination to connect the complicity in the commission of crime.

30. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that since the prosecution version has not been substantiated by the medical evidence because as per the finding of P.W.-11 that injury caused to the informant was caused by the hard and blunt object which is totally contrary to the prosecution version wherein it has been stated that the present applicant no.2 has inflicted injury to the informant by means of knife but the said knife was not sent for its examination to connect the complicity in the commission of crime. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant no.2 has been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal may be allowed.

31. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed.

32. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in connection with S.T. Case No. 184 of 2021 arising out of Loyabad P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021.

33. 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.) Saurabh/-