Jharkhand High Court
Lokesh Kumar Choudhary @ Laukesh Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2023
Lokesh Kumar Choudhary @ Laukesh Kumar Choudhary, S/o Late Aditya
Narayan Choudhary aged about 37 years R/o Flat No.201, B-Block
Vasundhara Orchid Apartment, Kachnartoli, PO & PS-Jagarnathpur, District-
Ranchi (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. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
Order No.12/ Dated 24th January 2025
I.A. No. 802 of 2025
The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 430(1) r/w Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of
sentence of the appellant provisionally on the ground of death of
father-in-law of the present appellant.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
that father-in-law of the appellant was admitted in Guru Nanak
Hospital & Research Centre, Ranchi and after having been discharged
from the Hospital, he died on 21.01.2025 and has been cremated at
Mukti Dham, Harmu Road, Ranchi and certificate to that effect has
been issued by Mukti Dham, which is appended as Annexure-2 to the
instant interlocutory application.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that being the son-
in-law he has filed this application for suspension of sentence
provisionally so that he may participate in the last rites of his father-
in-law.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, in course of argument has
admitted that his deceased father-in-law has his own son, who has
performed the duty as a son at the cremation / last rites ceremony but
only on the ground of attachment with his father-in-law the present
appellant is seeking suspension of sentence provisionally.
5. Serious opposition has been made by the learned A.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the State submitting that it is a case of double
murder of two brothers who were called in the office of the appellant
and thereafter murder was committed in his office and the dead bodies
were kept in the office, which were recovered later on.
6. It has been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the learned Trial
Court considering the serious nature of the offence committed by the
present appellant, has found substantial material produced by the
prosecuting agency, based upon which, the present appellant has been
convicted.
7. It has further been contended by the learned A.P.P. that prayer
for suspension of sentence of the present appellant has already been
dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A. No. 1464 of
2024 dated 01.05.2024. The Co-ordinate Bench has considered the
material produced before the learned Trial Court, based upon which
appellant has been convicted, and refused to allow the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
8. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that since
the deceased father-in-law of the present appellant has his own son
and daughter for performing the last rites, and as such, taking into
consideration the nature of crime committed by the present appellant,
the appellant does not deserve sympathy to attend the last rites of his
father-in-law, that too when the cremation has already taken place.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the averments made in the instant interlocutory application.
10. This Court, in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties has gone through the L.C.R.
11. It is evident that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while
considering the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant, has
taken into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, based upon
which the judgment of conviction has been passed by the learned Trial
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2023
Court, and considering the nature of offence of double murder
committed in the office of the appellant, has refused to suspend the
sentence of the present appellant.
12. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the
present appellant to participate in the remaining last rituals of his
deceased father-in-law. It is not a case that in his in-laws' house there
is none to perform the last rites rather it is admitted case of the present
appellant, as has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the appellant's deceased father-in-law has his own son to perform
his last rites / cremation.
13. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
particularly the fact about the heinous crime of committing double
murder of two brothers in the office of the appellant and also the fact
that prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant has already
been refused by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further the
fact that appellant's deceased father-in-law has his own son to perform
the last rites, we are not inclined to allow the prayer of the appellant
for suspension of sentence, provisionally.
14. Accordingly, the prayer made through I.A. No. 802 of 2025 is
rejected and consequently the instant interlocutory application is
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1390 of 2023
