Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 686 (JHR)

Ram Chandra Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-17

D.N.PATEL, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 661 of 2012 Per D.N. Patel, J.–Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of appellant No. 2 tendering his unconditional apology of filing of a forged document i.e. School Leaving Certificate of appellant No.2. The said document was forged and fabricated and it was contended that appellant No.2 is minor and I.A. No. 1226 of 2013 which is filed on behalf of appellant No. 2 is now to be withdrawn. This affidavit is taken on record. 2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1226 of 2013 is disposed of as withdrawn. 3. This appeal has been admitted vide order dated 9th July, 2012. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 355 of 2008/99 of 2009 was called for from the trial Court so as to reach to this Court for appreciating the argument for suspension of sentence. 4. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial has been received by this Court and we have perused the same and heard the learned counsel for both the sides. 5. Looking to the evidences on record, it appears that the present appellants are original accused Nos. 1 and 5 in the Sessions Trial. They have been punished mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment. 6. Looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against these appellants. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that the case of the prosecution is based upon the depositions of the several eye-witnesses who are PW 1. PW 4, PW 5 and PW 7, PW 7 is an informant. Looking to the depositions of these eye-witnesses, they have clearly narrated the role played by these two appellants. The appellants have caused injury upon the deceased by sharp cutting instrument as well as by lathi which has resulted into the death of the deceased. The deposition of the eye-witnesses is constituting a prima facie case against these appellants. Moreover, deposition of these eye-witnesses is getting enough corroboration by the deposition given by. Dr. Anita Sundi (PW 9-Court Witness No. 1). The deposition of the eye-witnesses is constituting a prima facie case against these appellants. Moreover, deposition of these eye-witnesses is getting enough corroboration by the deposition given by. Dr. Anita Sundi (PW 9-Court Witness No. 1). Looking to these evidences on record, there is prima facie case and, therefore, looking to the gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which these two appellants are involved in the offences as alleged by the prosecution and looking to the prima facie case, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to them by the trial Court. There is no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence and, hence, the same is, hereby, rejected. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 756 of 2012 7. This criminal appeal has been admitted vide order dated 31st July, 2012. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 355 of 2008/99 of 2009 was called for from the trial Court so as to reach to this Court for appreciating the argument for suspension of sentence. 8. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial has been received by this Court and we have perused the same and heard the learned counsel for both the sides. 9. Looking to the evidences on record, it appears that the present appellant is original accused No. 4 in the Sessions Trial. Looking to the deposition given by PW 1, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 7, there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant. The appellant has caused injury to the injured eye-witness who is PW 5 by lathi. Looking to these evidences on record, we hereby suspend the sentence awarded to the present appellant, namely, Prakash Sahu @ Prakash Sahu Sao, upon execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court (learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Ranchi) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 355 of 2008/99 of 2009 arising out of Ratu P.S. Case No. 55 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 1108 of 2008, on the condition that the appellant shall remain present before this Court as and when his presence is required by this Court. Ordered accordingly.