Jharkhand High Court
Budhram Tiriya @ Lala Tiriya 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
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1112 of 2024
----
1.Budhram Tiriya @ Lala Tiriya
2.Raghunath Tiriya
3.Baman Tiriya @ Monu Tiriya
4.Royaram Purty
5.Jaipal Tiriya ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P
--------
th
Order No. 07 : Dated 7 February, 2025
I.A. No. 1184 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of above-named appellants, under Section 430 of the
BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.05.2024
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chaibasa
in S.T. Case No. 110 of 2021 arising out of Noamundi P.S.
Case No. 01 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the
appellants has been found guilty of the offence under Section
302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay
fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine
each of them has to undergo further RI for six months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that it is a
case where the judgment of conviction is fully based upon the
testimony of P.W. 8, who has been considered to be eye-
witness to the occurrence but on consideration of the
testimony in entirety it would be evident that P.W. 8 cannot
be said to be eye-witness since there is wide contradiction in
the testimony of P.W. 8, as recorded in his cross-
examination.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the
aforesaid ground has submitted that it is a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
4. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as
available in the Lower Court Records.
6. This Court in order to appreciate the argument
advanced on behalf of appellants has gone through the
testimony of P.W. 8 wherefrom it is evident that he has
narrated the story and seen the appellants who have dragged
his mother and killed her. He had further testified that when
his father came into house, the accused persons entered into
the house and killed his father also.
7. Admittedly, some contradiction is there in the testimony
of P.W. 8 but that contradiction is not worth so as to
disbelieve the prosecution version.
8. This Court has also considered the expert report i.e., the
blood which has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
for DNA profile and found from the FSL Report, which has
been marked as Exhibit 11, that the blood-stained has been
found to be matched and is said to be from the same origin.
9. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the view
that since the version of the P.W. 8 gets fortified by the FSL
report, and the learned trial Court taking into consideration
the testimony of P.W. 8 vis-à-vis the FSL report, has
considered the P.W. 8 to be an eye witness, which cannot be
said to suffer from error.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the view, it is not a fit case
for suspension of sentence.
11. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands
dismissed.
12. 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.
13. This Court before parting with the order and on
consideration of the fact that parents have been killed and
P.W. 8, who happens to be the son of the deceased, and as
such the concern of this Court is take endeavor for the
welfare of the surviving child.
14. In view thereof, let the Member Secretary, JHALSA is
directed to look into the matter by passing appropriate
instruction to the respective Chairman/Secretary of the
District Legal Services Authority to look into these aspects of
the matter for the purpose of rehabilitation of the child of the
deceased [parents].
15. Let this order be communicated to the Member
Secretary, JHALSA forthwith.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Alankar/
