Jharkhand High Court
Nirmal Kido vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2024
Nirmal Kido, aged 27 years, S/O Late Lajrus Kido, Resident of Keundih
Birhortoli, P.O. & P.S. Pakartanr, District- Simdega., 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. Sunil Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.
Order No.03/ Dated 07th January 2025
I.A. No. 11963 of 2024
The aforesaid instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence of
the appellant in connection with the judgment of conviction dated
18.09.2024 and order of sentence dated 20.09.2024 passed in Sessions
Trial No. 160 of 2022 arising out of Pakartanr P.S. Case No. 18 of 2022
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 308 of 2022 by the learned Sessions
Judge, Simdega whereby and where under, the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the
IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine
of Rs. 25,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 6 months under Section
302 I.P.C and R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default
sentence of R.I. for 3 months under Section 201 I.P.C.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where there is no eye witness.
3. It has also been submitted that the appellant has been convicted
only on the basis of testimony of P.W.1-informant, who has deposed that
on the basis of confession made by the appellant the dead body was
recovered from nearby bush. However, P.W.1 at para 2 of his deposition
has stated that confession has been made by the appellant on being
beaten by the villagers.
4. It has been contended that the Investigating Officer, who has been
examined as P.W.14 has also deposed regarding the confession of the
appellant so recorded, but the said confession is not available on record.
5. Therefore, although the principal of Section 27 of the Evidence
Act has been applied but the parameter provided under the aforesaid
provision has not been followed, and, as such, it cannot be said that the
recovery of the dead body, based upon the disclosure of the appellant, is
absolutely applicable.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
7. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail.
8. It has been contended by the learned A.P.P. that P.W.1 and the
other witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version and, as
such, it is not correct on the part of the appellant to plead that
prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubts.
9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone
across the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court in the impugned
judgment. We have also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses
and the exhibits available in the L.C.R.
10. It is evident from the F.I.R that on the basis of the confession of
the appellant the dead body of the child aged about 1 ½ years was
recovered.
11. It further appears that there is landed property dispute between the
appellant and the informant, who appears to be a family member.
12. It further appears from the testimony of P.W.1, who has deposed
that the dead body was recovered after the confession of the appellant
regarding the location of the dead body.
13. We have examined the testimony of P.W.1 from which we have
found that the appellant was compelled to come in a gathering of the
villagers and, thereafter, the confession said to have been made by the
appellant before the said gathering of the villagers. It has also come that
the villagers were beating the appellant and the dead body has been
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2024
recovered on the basis of the confession so made. The confession of the
appellant, based upon which the dead body has been recovered are not
on the separate sheet rather it has been disclosed in the presence of P.W.1
and other villagers.
14. The Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.14 has
deposed in his testimony that he has recorded the confessional statement
of the appellant, but there is no confessional statement.
15. This Court, considering the fact that there is a landed property
dispute between the appellant and the informant and also the fact that the
dead body has been recovered on the basis of the confession so made by
the appellant on being beaten by the villagers and also the fact that the
confessional statement recorded by the Investigating Officer is not
available, is of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a
prima facie case for grant of bail by suspending his sentence.
16. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in connection with in
Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2022 arising out of Pakartanr P.S. Case No. 18
of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 308 of 2022.
17. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the case of the parties on merit as the appeal is lying pending
for its consideration.
18. In view thereof I.A. No. 11963 of 2024 is allowed and disposed
of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1413 of 2024
