Jharkhand High Court
Tuna Ram @ Tunu @ Sona Ram Purty vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 81 of 2020
With
I.A. No. 4900 of 2024
---------
Tuna Ram @ Tunu @ Sona Ram Purty, s/o Late Sharda Purty, aged
about 25 years, R/o Mungadighiya, P.O. and P.S. Noamundi, District
West Singhbhum.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
-----------
th
06/Dated: 19 June, 2025
1. At the outset, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that initially the appeal was filed through
legal aid by Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, learned counsel but thereafter,
on the strength of vakalatnama executed on behalf of the appellant,
he has put his appearance.
I.A. No. 4900 of 2024:
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence in connection with the
Judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2019 and order of sentence
dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 219 of 2014, in
connection with Novamundi P.S. Case No. 29 of 2014, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for
the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code with a
direction that the appellant shall not be considered for grant of
remission till he undergo the actual sentence of 30 years. In default
of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to undergo an additional
rigorous imprisonment of one year. The appellant has further been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of Ten years and fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Code. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to
undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment of one year. The
appellant has further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of
Six months for the offence under section 4 of the Prevention of
Witch (Daain) Practices Act.
3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, at the
outset, has submitted that the prayer for suspension of sentence of
the present appellant has already been dealt with by this Court vide
order dated 04.11.2020 passed in I.A. No. 758 of 2020 which had
been rejected.
4. The present interlocutory application has been filed renewing the
prayer for suspension of sentence solely on the ground of period of
custody as the appellant has already undergone sentence of more
than 11 years against the maximum punishment for life, as such, it is
case where the prayer for suspension of sentence may be considered.
5. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that although the
prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant has earlier been
rejected vide order dated 04.11.2020 passed in I.A. No. 758 of 2020
but he is fair enough not to dispute the fact that the appellant has
completed more than 11 years of sentence against the maximum
punishment of life.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the
submission made on behalf of both the parties.
7. This Court, taking into consideration the period of custody of the
appellant that he has already completed more than 11 years of
sentence, is of the view that the present interlocutory application is to
be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
9. In view thereof, the appellant named above, 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 Additional Sessions Judge-I, West
Singhbhum, Chaibasa in connection with S.T. Case No. 219 of 2014
arising out of Novamundi P.S. Case No. 29 of 2014.
10. 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.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Saurabh/-
