Jharkhand High Court

Wakil Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 September, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1239 of 2024
                                   With
                         I.A. No. 11493 of 2025
                                  ---------

Wakil Marandi, aged about 40 years, son of Bajiram Marandi, resident of Village Mahkub, P.O. Ranga, P.S. Ranga, District- Sahebganj, Jharkhand.

                                                       ... ... Appellant
                                  Versus
   The State of Jharkhand                            ... ... Respondent
                                  ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

----------

   For the Appellant        : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate
                              Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
   For the Respondent       : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.
                              Mr. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate
                                -----------
                 nd
   08/Dated: 22 September, 2025

I.A. No. 11493 of 2025:

1. The instant interlocutory application, under Section 430(1) of BNSS,

2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant for suspension of

sentence in connection with the Judgment of conviction dated

14.08.2024 and order of sentence dated 17.08.2024 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Sessions Trial No. 116

of 2022, arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No. 85 of 2021, whereby

and whereunder, the applicant has been convicted under Sections

120 B read with 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo

R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section

302 read with Section 120-B of IPC and in default of payment of

fine, he has further been directed to undergo S.I. for one year; the

applicant has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years and

fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of

IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to

undergo S.I. for 06 months. Both the sentences have been directed to

run concurrently.

Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, requires to be referred herein which

read as under:

The prosecution case, as per the fardbayan of one Lakhicharan

Mirdhan (Area Chaukidar) is that on 09.10.2021 at about 12:00

noon, when he was on patrolling duty, received an information

through villagers that a dead body of a woman was lying in Dohari

Pahar jungle at village Dohari gram. Thereafter, he reported the

matter to the officer-in-charge, Littipara P.S and reached at village

Dohari pahar and saw that lots of villagers were gathered there and a

woman aged about 24 years wearing yellow color saree and spotted

red color blouse was murdered by crushing her head with a stone by

unknown persons. On further inquiry from the persons present at the

place of occurrence, he tried to identify the deceased woman but

nobody could identify the deceased. Thereafter, the officer-in-charge

of Littipara P.S. along with other officials reached at the place of

occurrence, took the dead body in his custody and prepared

panchnama and further sent the dead body of deceased to Sadar

Hospital, Sonajori for postmortem.

3. In the backdrop of the written report of informant, FIR was lodged as

Littipara P.S. case No. 85/2021 dated 09.10.2021 u/s 302/ 201 of IPC

against unknown. After completion of the investigation, the I.O. filed

the charge-sheet u/s. 302, 201, 120-B of IPC against Rahul Mandal

and Wakil Marandi (applicant herein).

4. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the present applicant was found

guilty by the learned trial court and accordingly, has been convicted

and sentenced undergo R.I. for life under section 302 read with

Section 120-B of IPC alongwith fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default

of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo S.I. for

one year; the applicant has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for

05 years under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC

alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he

has further been directed to undergo S.I. for 06 months

5. The present application has been filed on behalf of applicant for

suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

Submission on behalf of the Applicant:

6. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, has

submitted that earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of the

present applicant had been dismissed as not pressed by the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025 passed in

I.A. No. 320 of 2025.

7. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed on

behalf of applicant renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence

on the ground that the judgment of conviction is without considering

the facts and circumstances of the case as the applicant is innocent

and has falsely been implicated in this case.

8. It has been submitted that the learned trial court has not appreciated

the fact which has been categorically been stated by the I.O. that on

the date of occurrence, the applicant was in judicial custody and the

said fact has also been substantiated by the testimonies of P.W.-1,

P.W.-2 and P.W.-6.

9. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant

that there is no eye witness to the occurrence as also the prosecution

witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution as none of the

witnesses have stated anything incriminating to link the applicant

with the alleged occurrence.

10. It has been contended that the present applicant has been convicted

only on the basis of the confession of the co-convict, namely, Rahul

Mandal @ Shyam Mandal who has already been granted bail by the

co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed

in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 427 of 2025 [I.A. No. 5640 of 2025].

11. The ground of custody has also been taken as the applicant is

languishing in judicial custody since 17.08.2024.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the aforesaid premise, has

submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence so

that the applicant be released from judicial custody.

Submission on behalf of the Respondent:

13. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the

prayer for suspension of sentence.

14. It has been submitted that there is allegation of conspiracy of murder

against the present applicant as it has been stated by the witnesses,

i.e., P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-6, that the present applicant had earlier

committed rape upon the deceased victim for which he had also

remained in custody and thereafter, the present applicant and Rahul

Mandal @ Shyam Mandal alongwith others used to threaten the

family members and the deceased victim to compromise the case

otherwise she would be killed and after some time, victim had been

murdered. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the aforesaid

premise, has submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case for

suspension of sentence, as such, the present interlocutory application

may be rejected.

15. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent state has not disputed the fact that the other co-convict,

namely, Rahul Mandal @ Shyam Mandal has already been granted

bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

27.08.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 427 of 2025 [I.A. No.

5640 of 2025] and further he has fairly submitted that all the three

witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1; P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 have stated, in their

testimonies, that at the time of the murder of the deceased victim, the

present applicant was in judicial custody in Rajmahal Jail.

Analysis:

16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the

submission made on behalf of both the parties.

17. This Court has perused the impugned judgment passed by the

learned trial court wherein it has been observed that the P.W.-1,

P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 have stated about the commission of rape upon

the deceased victim, before the commission of crime of murder of

the deceased victim, due to which the present applicant and Rahul

Mandal @ Shyam Mandal alongwith others used to threaten the

family members and the deceased victim to compromise the case

otherwise she would be killed but it has also been observed that the

present applicant was in judicial custody at the time of murder of the

deceased victim.

18. It has also been taken note in the judgment passed by the learned trial

court that the name of the present applicant has been surfaced on the

confession of the co-convict, namely, Rahul Mandal @ Shyam

Mandal and the allegation of conspiracy hatched alongwith Rahul

Mandal for the commission of murder of the deceased victim has

been taken note, as such, taking into consideration the same, the

present applicant has been convicted under Section 120-B of IPC

along with Section 302 of IPC.