Jharkhand High Court
Labe Mardi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1374 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 9143 of 2024
---------
Labe Mardi ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
---------
th
05/20 January, 2025
I.A. No. 9143 of 2024
1. This Interlocutory Application has been
filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 430(1) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for suspension of
sentence in connection with the judgment dated
12.09.2023 and sentence dated 18.09.2023, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur in
S.T. Case No. 225 of 2019 under Sections 302, 201 & 34
I.P.C., whereby and whereunder the appellant was
sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life along with a Fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 & 34 I.P.C.
and in default of payment of fine appellant was directed
further to undergo R.I. for Two (02) years. The learned
Court below further awarded R.I. for Five (05) years and
a Fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 &
34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine the appellant
was further to undergo R.I. for Six months and it was
directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the
appellant that it is a case where there is no eye-witness,
rather the conviction is based only on the recovery of a
Motorcycle and slipper, said to be made on confession of
the appellant. It has been submitted that on the mere
recovery of the slipper, there cannot be any conviction by
taking aid of the Section 27 of Evidence Act. The further
submission has been made that the deceased has been
alleged to be taken out by the present appellant on
04.08.2018 and the dead body was recovered on
11.08.2018, but in the meanwhile, no missing report has
been lodged before the Police as has been deposed by the
Investigating Officer in his testimony.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also
taken further ground of suspension of sentence of one co-
convict, namely Milan Singh, who has been directed to be
released on bail vide order dated 10.07.2024, passed in
I.A. No. 10984 of 2023, arising out of Criminal Appeal
(D.B.) No. 2112 of 2023.
The learned counsel for the appellant, based
his arguments upon the aforesaid grounds and has
submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra,
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the suspension of sentence.
It has been contended that the conviction
is based upon the recovery on the confession made by the
present appellant and as such, this is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the finding recorded by the
learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the
testimony available in the Lower Court Record and the
material exhibits. It appears that the conviction is actually
based upon the last seen theory by taking aid of the
Section 27 of Evidence Act.
5. We have considered the confessional
statement so made by the appellant and from there it is
found that a slipper, said to be of the deceased, and one
Motor cycle bearing registration No.JH 05N 5475 has been
recovered. The said slipper has not been sent for further
examination either by sending it before the F.S.L. or for
investigation in order to connect it to be belonging to the
deceased. There is no other incriminating material
recovered, save and except the said slipper, to show the
culpability of the present appellant in commission of the
crime.
6. Although the prosecution version is based
upon the last seen theory, but the father, who has been
examined as P.W.6, has not stated that he had seen the
appellant accompanying the deceased on 04.08.2018 in
his cross-examination. Further, the deceased was said to
be taken out by the present appellant on 04.08.2018 and
the dead body was recovered on 11.08.2018, but as per
the version of the Investigating Officer, no missing report
even has been instituted before the concerned police
station.
7. Further, the co-convict, namely Milan
Singh has also been directed to be released on bail vide
order dated 10.07.2024, passed in I.A. No. 10984 of 2023,
arising out of Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 2112 of 2023
after suspension of sentence.
8. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts,
is of the view that the appellant has been able to make out
a prima facie case for suspension of sentence.
9. In consequence thereof, 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 Addl. Sessions Judge IV, East
Singhbhum Jamshedpur, (I.D. No. 502) in S.T. Case No.
225 of 2019, arising out of M.G.M. P.S. Case No. 71 of
2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 68 of 2019.
10. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application,
being I.A. No. 9143 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed.
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
observation.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
