Jharkhand High Court
Etwa Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1384 of 2024
--------
Etwa Oraon, aged about 39 years, S/o Bholu Oraon @ Bhulu Oraon,
R/o- Vill- Ermado, P.O.- Bhandariya, P.S.- Bhandariya, District-
Garhwa, Jharkhand. .. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, Spl.PP
--------
nd
Order No. 04/ Dated: 02 January, 2025
IA No.11297 of 2024
1. The instant Appeal has been listed for passing appropriate order on
the instant Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of appellant under
Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
suspension of sentence/grant of bail during the pendency of the instant Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 1384 of 2024 in connection with Sessions Trial No.123 of
2015 arising out of Bhandariya P.S. Case No.53 of 2014 corresponding to
G.R. Case No.2505 of 2014 against the judgment of conviction dated
14.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 22.09.2017 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Garhwa, whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under
Section 302 of IPC and further held that in default of payment of fine the
convict would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year and apart from sentences the appellant has been ordered to pay
compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the family of the deceased.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it
is a fit case where the prayer for suspension of sentence is to be allowed
reason being that the conviction which is based upon the testimony of PW-
4, said to be an eye-witness, has deposed that he was in the drunken stage
and what was happening was not in a position to say exactly. It has further
been submitted that there is improvement in the prosecution version, if the
FIR will be taken into consideration with the testimony of PW-7, the wife
of the deceased. The submission has also been made that at best the case
can be said to attract the ingredient of Section 304 of IPC and the appellant
has already undergone the sentence for more than 10 years and as such, it is
a fit case where the sentence is required to be suspended.
3. While on the other hand, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has
contended by referring to the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 & PW-7 who
according to the learned State counsel all along have supported the
prosecution version and as such it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to
take the ground that it is not a case where the prosecution has been able to
prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such it is not a fit case
where sentence is to be suspended.
4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the findings recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned
judgment passed as also the testimony of the witnesses and documents as
available in the Lower Court Record and other material exhibits.
5. This Court in order to examine the rival submission advanced on
behalf of the parties has pointed the prosecution version wherein PW-7,
wife of the deceased has disclosed regarding the occurrence on the basis of
the information given by one Pandu Oraon, who has been examined as PW-
4. PW-7 has also taken the name of one Mr. Anil Tirki, who has been
examined as PW-2. It appears from the testimony of PW-2 that he has not
seen the commission of crime, however, the PW-4, Pandu Oraon appears to
have seen the occurrence i.e. the reason the learned trial Court has
considered him as eye-witness, but when we have considered the testimony
of PW-4 particularly in cross-examination he along with the deceased and
the present appellant was in the drunken stage and quarrelling with each
other who has also disclosed that he was in such a drunken stage that he
cannot say what exactly was happening on the day of occurrence.
6. Further, the appellant has already completed the sentence of more
than 10 years 3 months. It appears that the appeal is of the year 2024 since
it has been filed after the delay of 2519 days which has been condoned as it
would appear from order dated 19th November, 2024 as such, the appeal is
not likely to be taken up in near future.
7. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court is of the
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1384 of 2024
view that the sentence of the present appellant needs to be suspended.
8. As such, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
9. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail during pendency of this 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI,
Garhwa in Sessions Trial No.123 of 2015 arising out of Bhandariya P.S.
Case No.53 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2505 of 2014.
10. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No.11297 of 2024 stands disposed of.
11. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is pending before this
Court for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1384 of 2024
