Jharkhand High Court
Charan Balmuchu 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.2208 of 2023
-----
Charan Balmuchu, aged about 35 years, S/o Mata Balmuchu, R/o
Village-Jojogutu, PO + PS-Chhotanagra, District-West Singhbhum,
Jharkhand ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Appellant : Ms. Tejaswi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vasistha, Spl.PP
------
th
Order No.07/Dated:7 February, 2025
I.A. No. 11717 of 2023
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1)
Cr.PC for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the
judgment of conviction and sentence both dated 02.05.2023 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial
No.305 of 2019 arising out of Chhotanagra PS Case No.05 of 2019,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under
Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment
for Life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 302 of
the IPC and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo SI
for one year. The appellant has also been awarded sentence of RI for 07
years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under section 201 of the
IPC and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo SI of
one year. 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. It has been contended that the
sole basis of the conviction of the appellant is based upon the recovery of
the dead body which has been said to be recovered on the disclosure
made by the appellant before the villagers. It has been contended that the
said villagers who have been examined as prosecution witnesses, i.e.,
PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 have been declared to be hostile and, as such,
it has been contended that the fact about the disclosure made by the
appellant before the aforesaid prosecution witnesses has not been
proved.
3. On that basis, it has been contended that the conviction of the applicant
cannot be said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore,
it is a fit case where the present applicant be released from judicial
custody by suspending his sentence.
4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Vineet Kumar Vasistha, learned Spl.PP
appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence by saying that the dead body was
recovered on the basis of confession of the applicant herein.
5. 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.
6. The fact about the recovery of the dead body recovered on the basis of
the confession of applicant said to be made before the prosecution
witnesses, who have been examined as PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5, have
been declared to be hostile. The informant has also become hostile.
7. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned State counsel.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that applicability of section 27 of the
Evidence Act cannot be said to be attracted in the present case and,
hence, we are of the view that the applicant has been able to make out a
case for suspension of sentence.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11717 of 2023 stands allowed.
10. 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 Sessions Judge,
Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial No.305 of 2019 arising out
of Chhotanagra PS Case No.05 of 2019.
11. 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.
12. In view thereof, I.A. No. 11717 of 2023 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
