Jharkhand High Court
Sudhir Mahali 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 (D.B.) No. 1170 of 2024
--------
Sudhir Mahali, son of Sri Tarapada Mahali, aged about 38 years, resident
of Birra, P.O. & P.S. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, 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. Prabhat Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, APP
--------
th
Order No. 09/ Dated: 07 January, 2025
IA No.8086 of 2024
1. In pursuance of order dated 13.12.2024, a report has been received
which has been kept as Flag-X. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has submitted that he has not gone through the said report.
2. Considering the same, the original record has been handed over to
the learned counsel for the appellant for its perusal.
3. The said report has been perused by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant in the Court itself.
4. The occasion for calling upon the said report was that the
emphatically argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that he
is not medically sound. In addition to the ground on merit by advancing the
argument that even accepting the testimony of the witnesses, the
prosecution cannot be said to be proved the charge beyond all reasonable
doubt.
5. We have perused the said report which has also been perused by the
learned counsel for the appellant, the said report clarifies the mental status
of the present appellant said to be normal. The learned counsel for the
appellant based upon the said report has submitted that he is withdrawing
the ground which has been agitated so far as the mental status of the present
appellant is concerned based upon the said report. However, he has
submitted that he is pressing the instant interlocutory application on merit.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merit for the
purpose of consideration of the prayer for suspension of sentence in
connection with S.T. Case No.291 of 2021 arising out of Patamda P.S.
Case No.35 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1672 of 2021 against
the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2024 and order of sentence dated
21.03.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, whereby
and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
with fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and in default of payment of fine, the amount of fine has been
directed to be recovered from the estate of the appellant.
7. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that even if the
testimony of all the prosecution witnesses will be taken together it cannot
be said that the charge has been substantiated beyond all reasonable doubt.
It has been contended that the medical evidence is also not in support to the
ocular evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid
ground has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
8. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It has
been contended by referring to the testimony of all the witnesses including
the doctor that if it will be taken together it would be evident that the direct
complexity of the present appellant is there and as such it is incorrect on the
part of the appellant to take the ground that the prosecution has failed in
proving the charge said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt therefore,
it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
9. 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 as available in the
Lower Court Record and other material exhibits.
10. It is evident from the testimony that the case is based upon the
testimony of the eye-witness, the informant has been examined as PW-3,
who has fully supported the prosecution version. It further appears that on
the confession made by the appellant, the axe and cloths of the deceased
was recovered as also the DNA profile also support the prosecution version.
The Doctor who has been examined as PW-5 has also supported the
prosecution version.
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1170 of 2024
11. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that it is not
a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.
12. In consequence thereof, the instant interlocutory application i.e. I.A.
No. 8086 of 2024 stands rejected and as such disposed of.
13. 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
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1170 of 2024
