Jharkhand High Court
Pramila Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1606 of 2024
-------
Pramila Devi, Aged about 56 years, wife of Dilawar Kharwar,
Resident of Village- Mani Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Dehri, District-
Rohtas (Bihar).
... 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. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate.
-------
Order No.09/Dated- 17.03.2025
I.A. No.1279 of 2025
1. This instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 18.07.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palamau in connection with
Sessions Trial No.105A of 2015, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.102
of 2009 (G.R. Case No.901 of 2009) whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 148,
302/149 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under
Sections 302/149 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further S.I. for one year, further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under
Section 148 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further S.I. for four months and further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable
under Section 120B of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, further S.I. for six months.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the
case of the appellant is identically placed to that of the case of Talash
Kharwar @ Chutaria @ Talash Khaewar @ Chutaria, appellant in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1092 of 2022, Awatar Kharwar, the appellant
in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1168 of 2024 and Fantar Kharwar @ Hantar
Kharwar, the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1547 of 2024.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the allegation
of culpability as has been found against the present appellant is identical
to that of those appellants and as such, it is also a case where the
sentence is to be suspended.
4. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted
that it is, therefore, fit case for suspension of sentence.
5. On the other hand, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence.
6. It has been submitted by referring to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the
affidavit in objection that the nature of culpability committed by the
present appellant is serious and the same has been established as per the
testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.8, as such, it is not the case where the such
sentence is to be suspended.
7. We have heard 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 witnesses available in the trial court record.
8. We, in order to examine the involvement of the present appellant
said to be identically placed with the cases of Talash Kharwar @
Chutaria @ Talash Khaewar @ Chutaria, appellant in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No.1092 of 2022, Awatar Kharwar, the appellant in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No.1168 of 2024 and Fantar Kharwar @ Hantar Kharwar,
the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1547 of 2024 respectively,
have gone through the testimony of the witnesses and has found that
against the present appellant, the material has come that she has
prompted other co-accused to kill the deceased. The other co-convicts
since have been directed to be released on bail on the ground of no
direct involvement in the commission of crime of rape or murder as has
been alleged against Nawal Kharwar @ Niraj Kharwar, Mithilesh
Kharwar, Japshi Kharwar and Deepak as has been deposed by the
P.W.6, this Court is of the view that interlocutory application i.e. I.A.
No.1279 of 2025 is fit to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1279
of 2025 stands allowed.
10. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be
released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Palamau in connection with Sessions Trial No.105A of 2015,
arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.102 of 2009 (G.R. Case No.901 of
2009).
11. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice
the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin-Sunil/
