Jharkhand High Court
Chaita Singh Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 March, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 505 of 2023
Chaita Singh Munda, aged about 64 years, S/o Late Pelu Singh Munda, Resident
of Kenda Anda, P.S. - Nimdin, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan, Jharkhand
--- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mrs. Nalini Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
I.A. No. 13397 of 2024
09/12.03.2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P.
representing the State.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail
during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been
preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2022 and
order of sentence dated 26.11.2022 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.
46 of 2009 arising out of Ichagarh P.S. Case No. 12 of 2009
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 105 of 2009 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Chandil, Seraikella-Kharsawan whereby the appellant
has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of
the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 6 months.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that although the
charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 323,324,326,307 and 302/34 of the IP.C but after
conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and he
has been acquitted and discharged from the charges under Section
323, 324,326 and 302 of the IPC.
4. It has further been pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellant that out of the maximum sentence of 8 years awarded
against the appellant, he has served almost the entire period i.e., 7
years 9 months and 11 days.
5. It has further been pointed out that that the learned Trial Court
failed to appreciate the testimonies of P.W.4 Biren Mahto, younger
brother of the deceased Sudhir Mahto and P.W.5 Shankar Singh
Munda, brother of injured Shambhu Singh Munda, who are highly
interested witness and there is no eye witness to the incident and all
are hearsay witness. Further, it has been pointed out that there are
several contradiction in the testimonies of witnesses and therefore, it is
prayed that let the order of sentence be suspended by enlarging the
appellant on bail during pending of this appeal.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the
State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and
submitted that the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307/34 of the IPC but he did not controvert
the fact that the appellant has already served almost entire sentence
i.e., 7 years 9 months and 11 days out of the maximum sentence of 8
years awarded by the learned Trial Court and to that effect he has also
produced the report furnished by the Superintendent of Central Jail,
Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur vide memo no. 1415 dated 11.03.2025, which
is taken on record.
7. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the
trial court record, depositions of witnesses and other exhibits.
8. In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the
appellant on bail.
9. Accordingly, the appellant named above is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandil, Seraikella Kharsawan in
connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 46 of 2009 arising out of
Ichagarh P.S. Case No. 12 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 105
of 2009 .
10. I.A. No. 13397 of 2024 is allowed.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 505 of 2023
