Jharkhand High Court
Rajkumar Thakur @ Raj Kumar Thakur Aged ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.14 of 2025
-----
Rajkumar Thakur @ Raj Kumar Thakur aged about 29 years S/o Badri
Thakur, R/o Village-Basantpur, Po + PS-Poraiyahat, District-Godda
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP
------
th
Order No.03/Dated:7 February, 2025
I.A. No. 13875 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1)
of BNSS, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with
the judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2024 and order of sentence dated
30.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda in
connection with Sessions Trial No.53 of 2020 arising out of Godda
(Town) PS Case No.269 of 2018 corresponding to G.R Case No.1718 of
2018 (T.R. No.2594 of 2020), whereby and whereunder, the appellant
has been convicted under Sections 452/34, 324/34, 326/34 and 307/34 of
the IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 307/34 of the IPC and in
default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo SI for three
months. The appellant has also been awarded sentence of RI for
05 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 452/34
of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo
SI of two months. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has
falsely been implicated in the present case.
3. It has been contended that it is a case wherein the prosecution has
miserably been failed in establishing the charge said to be proved beyond
all reasonable doubts reason being that the specific case of the
prosecution is that the informant, PW2, has sustained the bullet injury in
the chest but very surprisingly there is no recovery either of the pellet or
the arms and even the chargesheet has not been submitted against the
appellant under any penal provision of the Arms Act. As such, the
arguments has been advanced that if the occurrence is in the said
transaction, then the same cannot be bifurcated in two parts, i.e, in not
submitting charge sheet with respect to implication of the present
applicant for commission of crime under the Arms Act and while
alleging for commission of crime under section 307 of the IPC.
4. It has also been submitted that even there is lack of proper identification
by the PW2, the informant who is an injured witness, since his specific
testimony is that he has identified the accused person from his voice
reason being that the face of the accused was totally covered with cloth
and that is the case of the prosecution version if the FIR will be taken
into consideration.
5. On that basis, it has been contended that the conviction of the applicant
cannot be said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts as element of
suspicion is there with respect to the commission of the crime of the
present applicant and, therefore, it is a fit case where the present
applicant be released from judicial custody by suspending his sentence.
6. While, on the other hand, Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned APP appearing
for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended that PW2, who
sustained injury has been examined as prosecution witness and has fully
supported the prosecution version. It has been contended that since PW2
has sustained injury and, as such, his presence cannot be denied and
when he supported the prosecution version, it is incorrect on the part of
the applicant that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge
said to be beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, it is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as
also the testimonies of the witnesses and other material exhibits available
therein.
8. This Court, after having gone through the impugned judgment and the
testimony of the witnesses, particularly, PW2, has found that PW2 has
identified the present applicant through his voice. Admittedly, as per the
case of the prosecution, the face of the present applicant was totally
covered with cloth. The case as per the prosecution version is that the
gun shot injury has been shown to be there from which PW2 has
sustained injury, but there is no recovery of any pellet, arm or
bloodstained earth. Therefore, no chargesheet has been submitted under
any penal provision under the Arms Act.
9. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned State counsel.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the alleged occurrence is in the
said transaction and, as such, charge not framed under the Arms Act
against this applicant creates doubts in the prosecution version, hence,
we are of the view that the applicant has been able to make out a case for
suspension of sentence.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No. 13875 of 2024 stands allowed.
12. In consequence thereof, the applicant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Godda in connection with Sessions Trial No.53 of 2020 arising
out of Godda (Town) PS Case No.269 of 2018 corresponding to G.R
Case No.1718 of 2018 (T.R. No.2594 of 2020).
13. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying pending
before this Court for its consideration.
14. In view thereof, I.A. No. 13875 of 2024 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
