LAWS(JHAR)-2022-6-1

AMIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On June 27, 2022
AMIT KUMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. on renewed prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No. 3553 of 2022. This appellant along with Arjun Verma, Rajesh Kumar Sao and Shera Sharma have been convicted under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C vide impugned judgment of conviction dtd. 7/12/2019 passed in S.T. Case No. 129/2017 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Special Judge SC/ST, Ranchi, and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each and a compensation of Rs.10,000.00 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, Pawan Verma and default sentence vide impugned order of sentence dtd. 9/12/2019.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case was dependent upon the statement of P.W.-1 and P.W. 2 who claimed themselves to be the eye-witness. P.W.-2 and 3 have been declared hostile, while P.W. 4 to 6 are hearsay witnesses. So far as the statement of P.W.-1 made under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. and during trial is concerned, the same are not in conformity with the medical evidence of the Doctor P.W.-8, who has opined in the post mortem report that the deceased was assaulted by heavy sharp cutting weapon. P.W.-1 and 2 were also drinking bear and claimed to have seen the victim being assaulted with broken bear bottles by the four accused persons. The allegation against all the four accused person was omnibus. Learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, however, on consideration of the materials on lower court records vide order dtd. 7/4/2022, enlarged the appellant Arjun Verma, Rajesh Kumar Sao (appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 233 of 2020) and Shera Sharma (appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 479 of 2020) on bail taking note of the discrepancy in the statement of P.W.-1 vis -vis the medical report. The case of the present appellant stands on similar footing. He has been in custody since 7/12/2019. As such, he may also be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer.