Jharkhand High Court
Dasai Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 55 of 2025
----
1.Dasai Oraon
2.Munna Oraon
3.Pappu Oraon ... ... 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
Ms. Sugandha Khalkho, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P
--------
th
Order No. 03 : Dated 19 February, 2025
I.A. No. 323 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of all the appellants, namely, (1). Dasai Oraon; (2).
Munna Oraon and (3). Pappu Oraon, under Section 430 (1) of
the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated
23.12.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in
Sessions Trial No. 192/2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No.
507 of 2022, whereby appellant no. 1 has been convicted
under sections 307 I.P.C. and 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.
5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C.
and in case of default in depositing the fine amount, the
appellant no. 1 has been directed to undergo further simple
imprisonment of 3 months and further sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year
and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under section
323/34 of the I.P.C. and in case of default in depositing the
fine amount, the appellant no. 1 has been directed to
undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days.
2. Further the appellant no. 2 and 3 has been convicted
under sections 304/34 Part-1 and 323/34 I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years
and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under
section 304/34 Part-1 of I.P.C. and in case of default in
depositing the fine amount, the appellant no. 2 and 3 has
been directed to under SI for 6 months and further sentenced
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a year and fine of Rs.
500/- for the offence under section 323/34 of the I.P.C. and
in case of default in depositing the fine amount, the appellant
no. 2 & 3 directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15
days.
3. After some argument, learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that he does not want to press this
Interlocutory Application so far appellant nos. 2 and 3,
namely, Munna Oraon and Pappu Oraon are concerned.
However, he will be arguing the matter so far appellant no. 1,
namely, Dasai Oraon is concerned.
4. Such submission has been made in presence of learned
APP appearing for the State.
5. In view of such submission, the Instant Interlocutory
Application is dismissed as not pressed so far as appellant
nos. 2 and 3, namely, Munna Oraon and Pappu Oraon are
concerned. However, so far appellant no. 1, namely, Dasai
Oraon is concerned, the matter will be heard on the
Interlocutory Application.
6. It has been contended on behalf of appellant no. 1,
namely, Dasai Oraon, that there is no intention to kill which
would be evident from the judgment passed by learned trial
Court. It has been submitted that no fatal blow has been
caused by the appellant no. 1. Further, the doctor P.W. 8,
who has examined the deceased before his death has opined
that the injuries were simple in nature.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 has further
contended that so far role of appellant no. 1 is concerned, it
is stated in the FIR that he assaulted the wife of the
informant by the brick but the doctor has found the nature of
injury to be simple in nature.
8. It has further been submitted that there was no pre-
meditation, which would be evident from the consideration so
made by learned trial court in the finding so recorded by the
learned trial Court in the impugned judgment.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much
emphasis that the appellant no. 1 is having the age of more
than 50 years and as such his case may be considered for
suspension of sentence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 based upon the
aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
11. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence so far it relates to overt act committed by the
appellant no. 1 is concerned.
12. It has been contended that fatal blow has been made by
the appellants including appellant no. 1 due to which the
deceased succumbed to injuries and as such submission has
been made that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
13. 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.
14. This Court has considered the fact that no fatal blow
has been caused by the appellant no. 1 rather as per FIR he
assaulted the wife of the informant by the brick but the
doctor has found the nature of injury to be simple in nature.
Further, the doctor P.W. 8, who has examined the deceased
before his death has opined that the injuries were simple in
nature.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the view, the sentence is to be
suspended, during pendency of the appeal.
16. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is
allowed.
17. In view thereof, the appellant no. 1, Dasai Oraon, 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 earned Sessions
Judge, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 192/2022
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 507 of 2022.
18. 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.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Alankar/
