Jharkhand High Court
Guddu Pasi @ Umesh Pasi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 919 of 2024
----
1.Guddu Pasi @ Umesh Pasi
2.Ramawatar Pasi
3.Sunita Devi
4.Mahesh Pasi ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant No. 3: Mr. Pankaj Kr. Dubey, Advocate
Ms. Anjana Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
--------
Order No. 06 : Dated 13th January, 2025
I.A. No. 12838 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of appellant no. 3, namely, Sunita Devi, under Section
430 of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated
05.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
3rd Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 111 of 2021 arising out
of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 468 of 2020 corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 718 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
has been found guilty under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 7500/- and
in case of default of payment of fine has to undergo further SI
for three months for the offence punishable under section
302/34 IPC; and further sentenced to RI for five years with fine
of Rs. 5000 and in case of default of payment of fine shall have
to undergo further SI for two months for the offence punishable
under Section 201/34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant no. 3 has
submitted that it is a case where merely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, even though no incriminating material
has come in course of trial so far as the culpability said to be
committed by the present applicant is concerned, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed.
3. It has been contended that conviction of present applicant
has been made on the basis of recovery of 'Nighty' said to be
blood-stained but in the report submitted by the FSL, which
has been marked as Ext. E, no blood-stain was found on the
said 'Nighty'.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted
that there is no involvement of the applicant in any way in the
incidence and she is in judicial custody along with two minor
children, who are aged about 3 and 5 years respectively.
5. Furthermore, the fact about land dispute between the
parties has also come in course of trial.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the
aforesaid ground, has submitted that the present applicant-
appellant no. 3 may be released on bail by suspending the
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
7. While on the other hand, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel
appearing for the Informant, have jointly opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
8. 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 as also the report of FSL.
9. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the
conviction of the present applicant [appellant no. 3] is based
upon the recovery of one blood-stained 'Nighty', which is said to
be present applicant.
10. This Court, in order to come to the finding regarding
culpability said to be committed by the present applicant in the
commission of crime has perused the report of FSL, which has
been marked as Exhibit E, in order to assess as to whether any
blood stain was found in the said 'Nighty' or not, has found
therefrom that the FSL report clarifies that no blood stain was
found on the 'Nighty' said to be of the present applicant.
11. Admittedly, it is a case where the conviction of appellant
no. 3 is based on the ground of recovery of said 'Nighty'.
Furthermore, the appellant is in judicial custody along with her
two minor children.
12. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view
that it is case where the appellant no. 3 has made out a prima
facie case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the
appeal.
13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the sentence is to
be suspended, during pendency of the appeal so far as the
present applicant is concerned.
14. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is
allowed.
15. In view thereof, the applicant-appellant no. 3, namely
Sunita Devi, 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 learned
learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Palamau at Daltonganj
in S.T. No. 111 of 2021 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.
468 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 718 of 2021.
16. 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.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Alankar/
