BALGOBIND TIRKI @ BALGOVIND ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of these three criminal appeals, two have already been admitted, namely, Cr. A. No. 707 of 2012 and Cr. A. No. 800 of 2012. All the three appeals are arising out of the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in S.T. No. 446 of 2005. Order of sentence is dated 22nd May, 2012. Cr. A. No. 810 of 2012 is also admitted. Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 446 of 2005 has already been received by this Court.

(2.) We have heard counsels appearing for both the sides as well as counsel for the informant. Counsel for the appellants has argued out the case for suspension of sentence awarded by the trial court mainly on the ground that most of the witnesses who have been examined are the relatives of the deceased except P.W. 2 and there are lot of inconsistencies in the prosecution version which tantamount major omissions, contradictions and improvements. Counsel for the appellants has argued out the case at much length but suffice it to point out that looking to the depositions of P.Ws 2 and 5, it appears that there was some complaints filed by the original accused no. 1, namely, Bal Gobind Tirki against the deceased, who was punished by the competent trial court. Moreover, the dead body was found out on 26.2.2005 and the incident had taken place on 20.2.2005 at about 3 p.m. It is also contented by the counsel for the appellants that neither anybody has identified the dead body of the deceased nor it is coming in the evidence of Investigating Officer. Moreover, P.W. 4 and other witnesses have stated that the deceased was burnt by the accused whereas other witnesses are saying that there was a blood and the uniform of the deceased who was working in the Postal Department was also found intact and as it is. Thus, if the dead body was set at fire, there is no question of identification by the dress of the deceased and looking to the inquest panchnama, which is Ext.-6, no uniform or part of the uniform was found out near the place of occurrence or from where the dead body was found out. The colour of shirt is absolutely different as stated in the inquest panchnama. Thus, looking to the over all evidences, no confidence is inspired as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants and moreover he has also submitted that because of personal enmity these accused persons named in the FIR. In all there were 34 persons who were named whereas charge sheet was filed only against 14 persons and it is also submitted by counsel for the appellants that all these appellants were on bail during the court of trial and they have always remained present in the court as and when their presence is required. Therefore the judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be suspended under section 389 of the Cr.P.C., during the pendency of these criminal appeals.

(3.) We have also heard counsels for the State APP as well as the informant who have vehemently submitted that the incident has taken place on 20.2.2005 at about 3 p.m. FIR was filed on 21.2.2005. The appellants accused were named in the FIR that they dragged the deceased out of his house and had taken away and ultimately he was done to death. The dead body was found out on 26.2.2005; the deceased was working in the post department and he was identified by dress. All the prosecution witnesses have categorically stated the role played by the appellants-accused and therefore there is no error committed by the learned trial court in convicting these appellants-accused and therefore, sentence may not be suspended by this Court in exercise of power under section 389 of the Cr.P.C.