BIRENDRA KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants, who are original accused No.s 1, 2, 3 and 4 in S.T. No. 55 of 2011 against their judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 24th September, 2012 and 25th September, 2012 respectively, in S.T. No.55 of 2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby Birendra Kunwar (sole appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1029 of 2012), Mithu @ Alok Das and Tan @ Tuntun Ravidas (Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 respectively in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1055 of 2012) have been awarded sentences to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 under section 302/34 I.P.C. and also Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 2000.00 under section 201/34 I.P.C. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) BOTH the appeals have already been admitted and records and proceedings of S.T. No. 55 of 2011 have been called for from the concerned trial court so as to appreciate the arguments on the prayer for suspension of sentence. The concerned records and proceedings have been received and we have perused the same.

(3.) IN the light of these evidences and other evidences, it appears that there is prima-facie case in favour of these appellants and we, therefore suspend the sentence awarded to the appellants and direct that the present appellants, namely Birendra Kunwar (sole appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1029 of 2012), Mithu @ Alok Das and Tan @ Tuntun Ravidas (Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 respectively in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1055 of 2012) shall be enlarged on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court (Sessions Judge, Dhanbad) in connection with S.T. No. 55 of 2011, subject to the condition that the appellants will remain present in the court as and when their present is required and they shall not change their residential address without prior permission of this court, so that as and when the appeal is heard they are traceable easily and one of the sureties of each of these appellants will be a close relative of that particular appellant.