Jharkhand High Court
Jeetwahan Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2021
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 4 of 2021
Jeetwahan Lohra --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Through Video Conferencing For the Appellant : Mr. Altamash Khan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P. 05/10.06.2021 Heard Mr. Altamash Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned A.P.P for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 2261/2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147,148,149,449 and 302/34 of the I.P.C and Section 3 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 141A/ 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Lohardaga and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C with a fine of Rs.2000/- and a default sentence; R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and a default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C; R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and a default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the I.P.C and S.I. for 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act by the order of sentence dated 10.12.2020. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 147 I.P.C. as he has also been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the appellant stands on a similar footing as that of co-convict Anuj Kherwar. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial of this appellant was split up, though altogether six persons were charge sheeted in connection with Serengdag P.S. Case No. 6/2016. By a separate judgment passed in Sessions Trial No. 141/2016, five accused persons were convicted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2019. It is submitted that as per the statement of P.W-1 -2- Rajwanti Kumari and P.W-2 Dewanti Kumari, Informant / daughter of the deceased, this appellant and one Anuj Kherwar were standing outside the house while four accused persons had entered the house and dragged their father outside, where after he was assaulted. It is submitted that four other convicts in S.T. No. 141/2016 have been granted the privilege of suspension of sentence by separate orders passed by the Coordinate Benchs of this Court. Accused Sanjay Lohra has been granted bail in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 144/2019 (I.A. No.1699/2019) dated 15.04.2019, whereas other co-convicts Parmeshwar Lohra, Anuj Kherwar and Chandan Mahli have also been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 272/2019 (I.A. No. 4662/2019). It is submitted that the case of the appellant being similar to that of the co-convict Anuj Kherwar, he may also be granted the privilege of suspension of sentence. It is further submitted that the FIR was registered against unknown, but during deposition, the prosecution witnesses, Informant and his sister have tried to explain that they did not disclose the name out of fear. In those circumstances therefore, appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail by granting the privilege of suspension of sentence.
Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer. He submits that it is a case of unlawful assembly indulging in serious assault upon the father of the Informant which caused his death. The post-mortem report also shows several injuries and complete disfigurement of his face. Death was due to sudden trauma over the head resulting in expulsion of the brain matter and neurogenic shock resulting in instant death (Ext-2). It is further submitted that the confessional statement of this appellant led to the arrest of other co-accused persons. Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail. However, he does not dispute that other co-convict Anuj Kherwar, Parmeshwar Lohra and Chandan Mahli have been granted the privilege of suspension of sentence earlier by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken into account the relevant material evidence borne from the lower court records and also relied upon by them. It appears that the case of the appellant stands on a similar footing to that of other convict Anuj Kherwar who has been granted the privilege of suspension of sentence by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated -3- 29.07.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 272/2019. This appellant and accused Anuj Kherwar were stated to be standing outside the house of the Informant while other accused persons entered the house and dragged him out. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant above named, during the pendency of this appeal, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Lohardaga in connection with Sessions Trial No. 141A/2016 with the condition that he and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 2261/2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary) A.Mohanty