Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 371 (JHR)

Prashant Pati etc. v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellant Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 727 of 2017 and Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 830 of 2017 on the prayer of suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 3347 of 2017 and I.A. No. 3794 of 2017. 2. Both these appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Appellant, Krishna Gope has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution witness Nos. 3 and 4 have turned hostile during trial. PW 1, Sambhu Gope is said to be the friend of the deceased, PW 2, Binandani Raju Devi mother of the deceased, PW 5, Manju Raju, wife of the deceased claim to be the eye-witness. PW 2, as per her deposition, has only heard of the incidence from her daughter-in-law. Statement of PW 5 about presence of the appellant is also unworthy of reliance. The second Investigating Officer of the case has also not been examined. There are vital flaws in the entire prosecution evidence which did not permit the conviction of the accused-appellant for the aforesaid charges. The Medical Officer, PW 8, who conducted the post-mortem on the body of deceased, has opined that injury Nos. III, IV, V and VI have been caused by hard and blunt substance. Death was due to haemorrhage and shock. Therefore, the appellants may be granted the privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that PW 1, friend of the deceased, is an eye-witness, who has correctly narrated the entire story during trial. PW 5, wife of the deceased and author of First Information Report, has also fully corroborated the prosecution story during trial and clearly named the appellant. Krishna Gope and Prashant Pati of having inflicted the vital injuries through fire shot from pistol and assault by Bhujali which also stands corroborated by medical evidence. PW 5, wife of the deceased and author of First Information Report, has also fully corroborated the prosecution story during trial and clearly named the appellant. Krishna Gope and Prashant Pati of having inflicted the vital injuries through fire shot from pistol and assault by Bhujali which also stands corroborated by medical evidence. There is recovery of weapon of crime i.e., iron made sword with blood stained in its edge blood stained soil and Bhujali on the basis of confessional statement of the accused, Prashant Pati (Ext.-6). The seizure-list (Ext.-2/1) has been duly during trial by the seizure witness PW 1. The FIR was lodged within half an hour of the incidence. The existence of the previous enmity between the accused and the deceased is not denied. The judgment of conviction is therefore well considered and the appellants do not deserve the suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. 5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant materials on record. PW 5 informant has supported the prosecution story during trial. PW 1 Shambhu Gope friend of the deceased, was an eye-witness who also stated that he had accompanied the deceased and saw the accused Krishna Gope fire by his pistol on the deceased on his back side in a close range and accused-appellant, Prashant Pati assaulted him by sword on his face. He was also armed with Bhujali. The accused, Prashant Pati was arrested and on the basis of his confessional statement, the weapon of crime i.e., iron made sword with blood stained on its edge, and bhujali were recovered as per seizure-list (Ext.-2/1) duly exhibited through seizure-list witness. PW 1, Medical Officer, PW 8, who has conducted the post-mortem examination has taken note of six such injuries, second one being by fire arm shot. All injuries were ante-mortem. Injuries No. 1(I) and (iii) were caused by sharp cutting weapon and injury Nos. (iii), (iv) (v) and (vi) were caused by hard and blunt substance and injury No. II was caused by fire arm. Death was due to haemorrhage and shock. 6. Having considered the aforesaid materials on record and the submission of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellants do not deserve the privilege of suspension of sentence during appeal. Death was due to haemorrhage and shock. 6. Having considered the aforesaid materials on record and the submission of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellants do not deserve the privilege of suspension of sentence during appeal. We, however, do not intend to make further comments on the merits of the case of the parties at this stage pending final hearing on merits. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3347 of 2017 and I.A. No. 3794 of 2017 are rejected. Applications rejected.