Jharkhand High Court
Barka Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1408 of 2024
1.Barka Soren, aged about 65 years, son of late Marnu Soren
2.Manjhan Kisku, aged about 55 years, wife of Barka Soren, Both resident of
Aprol Tala Tola, P.O. & P.S.- Borio, District- Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
-- --- Appellants
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. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
Order No.03/ Dated 08th January 2025
I.A. No. 11946 of 2024
The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence of the
appellants in connection with the judgment of conviction dated
27.08.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.08.2024 passed in Sessions
Trial No. 177 of 2019 arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 39 of 2019
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sahibganj whereby and
where under, the appellants have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and a
default sentence of S.I. for 3 months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that on perusal
of the testimony of P.W.3, who is considered to be an eye witness by
the learned Trial Court, it would be evident that his testimony cannot
be said to be trustworthy if the entire conduct of the said witness is
taken into consideration.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the testimony
of P.W.3 who has stated that he was accompanying the deceased
when they were called upon by the appellant Barka Soren for drinking
liquor. Upon which, the deceased entered into the house of the
appellants and P.W.3 stood outside the house and when he heard the
noise of quarrel, he rushed to the house of the deceased for the
purpose of giving information and thereafter returned back to the
place of occurrence along with the sister of the deceased where he saw
both the appellants were giving blow of axe on the head of the
deceased.
4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants
that the said conduct of P.W.3 cannot be said to be normal, since, he
being the nephew of the deceased, after hearing noise of quarrel,
ought to have rushed to the place of occurrence for saving the life of
his uncle, instead he rushed to the house of the deceased for giving
information to the wife of the deceased. This conduct of P.W.3 shows
that he cannot be said to be a trustworthy witness.
5. Further, argument has been made that the Investigating Agency
has not taken any initiative to connect the connectivity of the
commission of crime said to be committed by the appellants by going
in details so as to get a authentic report since there was no
examination as to whether the blood stain found in gamcha was of the
deceased or not.
6. Argument has also been advanced that there was no motive for
the appellants to commit the said crime rather there is a high
probability of malafide intention of P.W.3, who happens to be the
nephew of the deceased, to grab the landed property and question to
that effect was also put upon the witnesses.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid
grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
8. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail.
9. It has been contended by the learned A.P.P. that P.W.3 is the eye
witness before whom the entire occurrence took place. It has been
submitted that P.W.3 in his examination-in-chief has categorically
supported the prosecution version of witnessing the commission of
crime of giving assault by an axe by the appellants upon the deceased
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1408 of 2024
due to which he fell down and subsequently when he was being taken
to the hospital he died on the way.
10. Learned A.P.P. has relied upon the F.S.L report and submitted
that it is not fit case for suspension of sentence.
11. 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.
12. This Court in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties, particularly the conduct of P.W.3, who is
considered to be the eye witness, has gone through the testimony of
P.W.3 in its entirety and found that P.W.3 was accompanying the
deceased and other villagers while returning back to their home and
on the way the appellant Barka Soren called them for drinking liquor.
Upon which, the deceased entered into the house of the appellants
while P.W.3 was standing outside. P.W.3 after hearing noise of quarrel
coming from the house of the appellants did not rush inside the house
of the appellants, rather, rushed to the house of the deceased for
giving information to the wife of the deceased and thereafter returned
back to the place of occurrence along with the sister of the deceased
and saw that appellants were assaulting the deceased with an axe.
13. The said behavior of P.W.3 appears to be not credible, reason
being, if he was accompanying the deceased, who was his uncle, on
hearing noise of quarrel, the normal conduct of P.W.3 should have
been to rush to the place of occurrence to save his uncle instead he
rushed to the house of the deceased to inform the wife of the
deceased.
14. Further, we have found that although the FSL report and the
blood stain gamcha are there but no material has come to show that
the blood stain was of the deceased and the gamcha belonged to the
appellant Barka Soren
15. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts is of the view that
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1408 of 2024
the appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case for grant
of bail by suspending their sentence.
16. Accordingly, the appellants, above named, are directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Sahibganj in connection with in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 2019
arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 39 of 2019.
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. 11946 of 2024 is allowed and
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1408 of 2024
