Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Thakur vs State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1345 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 10345 of 2023
---------
Vijay Kumar Thakur, aged about 34 years, son of Ram Dular
Thakur, resident of Village-Husir, Lohar Tola, P.O.-Husir, P.S.-
Gomia, District-Bokaro.
... ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
-----------
th
05/Dated: 20 March, 2025
I.A. No. 10345 of 2023:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant for suspension of sentence dated 29.04.2023 passed in S.T.
Case No. 179 of 2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Bermo at Tenughat, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with
fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of
IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 324 of
IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 of IPC;
rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 337 of IPC and;
rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 341 of IPC.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where the conviction under Section 307 of IPC is there for which
sentence of 10 years has been inflicted.
3. It has been submitted that it is a case where the quarrel took place
amongst the family members residing under the same roof.
4. It has been submitted that so far as the nature of injury is concerned,
P.W.-1 has been shown to sustain injury simple in nature and P.W.-2
has been shown to sustain injury grievous in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant
has already remained in custody for 02 years and 07 months (without
remission), as such, prayer has been made for suspension of
sentence.
6. While, on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence.
7. 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 available in the trial court record and
the exhibit available therein.
8. The fact is not in dispute that the quarrel was there amongst the
family members living under the same roof and the scuffle took
place for the frivolous reason of quarrel in between the children
which led to fight and in course thereof, injury has been sustained by
the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. The nature of injury sustained by the P.W.-2
has been shown to be grievous in nature as per the testimony of the
doctor, however, the nature of injury sustained by the P.W.-1 has
been shown to be simple in nature.
9. But, this Court, considering the fact the custody of 02 years and 07
months undergone by the appellant, is of the view that the present
interlocutory application deserves to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
11. 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, Bermo at
Tenughat in connection with S.T. Case No. 179 of 2020.
12. 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.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Saurabh/-
