Jharkhand High Court
Jai Shankar Balaji vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 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. 926 of 2024
Jai Shankar Balaji, S/o Girish Dutt Tiwari, R/o Village-Khairi Tiwaridih, P.O. &
P.S.-Agiawan Bazar, Dist.-Bhojpur, State-Bihar
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate
Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
-----
Order No.9: 24st March 2025
I.A. No. 7094 of 2024
This instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of
sentence against the Judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2024 and order of sentence
dated 03.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Giridih in
connection with S.T. No. 131 of 2020, arising out of Giridih (Muffasil) P.S. Case
No. 96 of 2020, corresponding to Giridih (Muffasil) U.D.P.S. Case No. 13 of 2020,
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the
I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default
of payment of fine further S.I for six months.
2. Mr. Ankit Apurva, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended
that the judgment of conviction is based purely on conjecture and surmises, in a
case where there is no eyewitness.
3. It has also been pointed out that the Doctor has supported the prosecution
version. The doctor has opined to be also a case of suicide, but without appreciating
the aforesaid fact, the judgment of conviction has been passed and as such, the
judgment since showing infirmity, hence it is a case where the sentence may be
suspended.
4. While on the other hand, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special Public
Prosecutor appearing for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of
sentence.
5. It has been contended by the learned State counsel by referring the testimony
of the doctor, who has also supported the prosecution version. It has also been
submitted that the doctor has given its opinion to be a case of asphyxia along with
injury found in the head. The injury found in the head to be ante-mortem in nature
and as such, it is a case of commission of crime of murder.
6. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted it is
not case for suspension of sentence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned Judgment as also testimony
available therein and the other material exhibits.
8. The case is commission of murder of wife by the husband as per the
allegation. The death took place in the matrimonial house.
9. We have considered the testimony of the investigating officer, who has been
examined as PW-10 and also the doctor PW-8, who conducted post-mortem.
10. The doctor found the cause of death of the deceased as asphyxia resulting of
hanging and the head injury. The head injury has been found to be ante-mortem in
nature. The doctor has further opined that the ligature mark found all around the
neck and as such the said ligature mark is not possible to be there in suicidal case.
11. This Court considering the fact as per the post-mortem report that the reason
for death is the said injury, found to be ante-mortem and the doctor has disbelieved
the case to be of hanging, rather the doctor has considered the case to be of
asphyxia, as such, this Court is of the view that it is not a case for suspension of
sentence.
12. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the appellant has
not make out a case for suspension of sentence.
13. In consequence, thereof, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
appellant is hereby rejected.
14. Consequently, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.7094 of 2024 is
rejected and disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
R.Kumar / Satyendra Kumar
