Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1838 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 13670 of 2024
---------
Mahesh Ganjhu, aged about 23 years, s/o Jethan Ganjhu, r/o Village-
Tilaiya, P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, District-Chatra (Jharkhand).
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
-----------
th
09/Dated: 05 March, 2025
I.A. No. 13670 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant for suspension of sentence dated 22.07.2023 passed in
POCSO Case No.11 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO)-
cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in connection
with Sadar P.S. Case No.290 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 376(D) & 201/34 of
IPC and has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life along with
fine of Rs.10,000/- u/s 302 of IPC. Further, the appellant has been
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 25 years alongwith fine
of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 376(D) of IPC. The appellant has further been
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years alongwith fine of
Rs. 2,000/- u/s 201 of IPC and in default of payment of fine the
appellant has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment
of 6 months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where
the appellant has been convicted by applying the provision as contained
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act since as per the prosecution
version, the dead body and the incriminating material which was said to
be used by the deceased have been found on the disclosure statement.
3. It has been contended by referring to the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-
2 that the discovery of the articles, i.e., slipper and dupatta is before the
arrest of the present appellant. It has also been contended that although
in the testimony of P.W.-1, the said articles have been deposed to be
discovered in the first instance, before the arrest of the present appellant
but subsequently, in the same paragraph itself, it has been deposed by
the P.W.-1 that the said articles have been recovered after the arrest of
the present appellant.
4. It has been further contended that when the version of P.W.-1 itself is
in contradiction then the same cannot be said to be reliable evidence.
5. Further, the P.W.-2 has also reiterated the fact that the said articles have
been discovered and thereafter, the present appellant has been arrested.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that it is a case where the learned trial court has not
appreciated the applicability of the principle of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, therefore, it is a fit case where the sentence is to be
suspended.
7. While, on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer
for suspension of sentence.
8. It has been contended that if the testimony of all the witnesses will be
taken into consideration together, then the finding recorded by the
learned trial court leading to conviction of the present appellant cannot
be said to suffer from any infirmity and as such, it cannot be said to be
a case of suspension of sentence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as
also the testimony of the witnesses and other material exhibits available
therein.
10. The conviction is primarily based upon the applicability of the
provision of Section 27 of Evidence Act. Section 27 speaks that if on
disclosure made by the accused person leading to recovery then the said
provision is to be made applicable.
11. This Court, in order to ascertain the aforesaid fact, has considered the
testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2.
12. It is evident from the testimony of P.W.-1 itself wherein two versions
have been deposed by the said witness, i.e., at the initial stage, it has
been deposed that the articles have been discovered before the arrest of
the present appellant and subsequently, in the said paragraph itself it
has been deposed by the P.W.-1 that the articles have been recovered
after to arrest of the present appellant.
13. P.W.-2 has also deposed regarding the recovery of the aforesaid articles
before the arrest of the present appellant, which has been considered to
be the basis of conviction by the learned trial court.
14. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the
iota of doubt is there with respect to recovery of the articles from the
disclosure said to be made by the said appellant, as such, this Court is
of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie
case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.
15. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed.
16. 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 Special Judge (POCSO)-cum-District and Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Chatra in POCSO Case No.11 of 2022 arising out of Sadar
P.S. Case No.290 of 2021.
17. 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.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Saurabh/-
