Jharkhand High Court
Anuj Chouhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 430 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 13771 of 2024
---------
1. Anuj Chouhan, aged about 40 years, son of Sitaram Chouhan
2. Rohit Chouhan, aged about 27 years
Both son of Sitaram Chouhan and resident of Kankani 4 Number,
IPS Colony, P.O. and P.S. Loyabad, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
———-
For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Boby, Advocate
Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Advocate
Ms. Chanchal Chhaya, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate
———–
th
14/Dated: 16 April, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad J
I.A. No. 13771 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
430 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of
appellant no.2 for suspension of sentence dated 29.01.2024 passed in
S.T. Case No. 184 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
I, Dhanbad in connection with Loyabad P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021
corresponding to G.R. Case No.1929 of 2021, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant no.2 has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and
in default of payment of fine, the appellant no.2 has further been
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Factual Matrix:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per fardbeyan of informant is that
on 02.05.2021 at about 10.00 A.M the informant was taking lunch at
home along with his family members. In the meantime, informant’s
neighbour Anuj Chouhan started cleaning out drain water in front of
1
his house. Informant’s elder brother Raushan Pd. Chouhan made
objection then he was assaulted by the accused. Informant and his
mother Rita Devi also came out from home and saw that accused
Anuj Chouhan armed with knife and he is giving knife blow to
informant’s elder brother. Accused Rohit Chouhan caught hold neck
and right hand of his elder brother. Accused Sita Ram Chouhan had
also caught hold left hand and neck of informant’s elder brother.
Accused Dipak Chouhan and Saroj Chouhan had caught hold both
legs of informant’s elder brother. Informant’s elder brother was lying
on earth covered with blood.
3. It has been alleged that informant and his mother went there to save
his elder brother. Rohit Chouhan gave knife blow on chest of
informant. Informant fell down and he was trying to anyhow save his
elder brother. Accused Saroj Chouhan, Dipak Chouhan @ Sonu,
Sitaram Chouhan, Balaji Chouhan and Savitri Devi and Anuj
Chouhan gave four to five knife blows upon back and shoulder of
informant. Informant’s mother raised alarm thereafter, neighbours
assembled there. The accused persons went away when neighbours
assembled there. Villagers took informant and his elder brother
Roushan Pd. Chouhan to police station and thereafter they were
taken to Dhanbad for treatment. The accused persons inflicted injury
to the informant and his elder brother Roushan Pd. Chouhan by
means of knife with intent to kill them. Informant’s elder brother
Raushan Pd. Chouhan died in the way of Dhanbad.
4. The police case bearing Loyabad P.S. Case No. 30/2021 dated
02.05.2021 has been registered on the basis of fardbayan of
informant Ratnesh Prasad Chouhan for the offence punishable U/ss
341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against
seven (7) named accused persons, namely, Anuj Chouhan, Rohit
Chouhan (present applicant), Sitaram Chouhan, Deepak Chouhan,
Saroj Chouhan, Balajee Chouhan and Savitri Devi.
5. Further Chargesheet bearing Charge-sheet No. 50/2021 dated
25.07.2021 is submitted against accused persons including the
2
present applicant U/s 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302 read with
Section 34 IPC and further investigation against accused Deepak
Chouhan @ Sonu was kept open. The Cognizance of the offence has
been taken against the accused vide order dated 05.10.2021.
6. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution has
examined altogether 16 witnesses and the learned trial court after
appreciation of evidence has found the charges levelled against the
present applicant/appellant no.2 along with other accused proved
beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, the present
applicant/appellant no.2 has been convicted and sentenced as
aforesaid.
7. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the
applicant/appellant with the prayer for the suspension of sentence
during pendency of the instant appeal.
Argument on behalf of the appellant:
8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant no.2
that on earlier occasion also, the appellant no.2 had moved before
this Court for suspension of sentence by filing I.A. No. 8058 of 2024
which had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
04.09.2024.
9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the FIR was
instituted after inordinate delay which makes the prosecution’s case
doubtful.
10.It has been contended that the learned trial court has overlooked that
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is inconsistent with the
medical evidence on record since as per the informant version, knife
was used in giving assault but the doctor has found the cause of
injury to be caused through hard and blunt substance.
11.It has also been contended that out of the same set of evidences,
other accused persons have been acquitted which shows non-
application of judicial mind by the learned trial court.
3
12.It has been contended that the applicant/appellant no.2 is languishing
in judicial custody since 03.05.2021.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant no.2, on the aforesaid
premise, has submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case where the
sentence is to be suspended so that the applicant/appellant no.2 be
released on bail.
Argument on behalf of the respondent-State:
14. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced
by the counsel for the appellant for grant of bail during pendency of
the appeal.
15. It has been submitted that an unlawful assembly was formed by the
appellant and other accused persons and assaulted the informant and
his brother which has been fully corroborated and supported by the
prosecution witnesses.
16. It has further been submitted that the knife which has been used in
the commission of crime has been recovered, on the disclosure
statement of the co-accused, namely, Anuj Chouhan, from a water
tank of his house.
17. It has also been submitted, so far as the argument advanced on behalf
of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the
inconsistency/contradiction in the statement of the prosecution
witnesses, that the same is not fatal for the prosecution case since if
the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses will be taken into
consideration, then the alleged charges will be said to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case where the appellant
deserves the privilege of bail by suspension of sentence.
Analysis:
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given our
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and
4
have carefully gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial
court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the
witnesses and the material placed on record.
20. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it needs to refer
herein the settled position of law that the Court considering an
application for suspension of sentence is to consider only the prima
facie merits of the appeal. Reference in this regard may be made to
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Preet Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645 wherein it has
been observed that the Court considering an application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima
facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors. There should
be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an
order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and
compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as
mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC.
21. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position this Court is now
adverting to the admitted factual aspects of the instant case.
22. Admittedly, in the instant case for alleged homicide, the police case
bearing Loyabad P.S. Case No. 30/2021 dated 02.05.2021 has been
registered on the basis of fardbayan of informant Ratnesh Prasad
Chouhan for the offence punishable U/s 341, 323, 324, 325, 326,
307, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against seven (07) named accused
persons including the present applicant/appellant no.2. However, out
of the seven named accused persons, one accused had died during
trial and one accused Deepak Chouhan has not faced the trial along
with other accused persons.
23. It needs to refer herein that learned trial court had not found the
charges proved beyond reasonable doubt under sections U/s 341/149,
323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC
against the three accused persons Sitaram Chauhan, Savitri Devi and
Saroj Chauhan and accordingly they were acquitted from all alleged
5
charges. Further the accused/appellant no.1 namely Anuj Chauhan
has been convicted U/s 302 IPC only.
24. It needs to refer that the present applicant/appellant no.2 has been
convicted by the learned trial court under Section 307 IPC only and
the charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 302 IPC has
not been found to be proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts
against present applicant/appellant no.2, namely, Rohit Chauhan.
25. Thus, it is evident from aforesaid factual aspect that the learned trial
court has not found the ingredient of the common object as stipulated
under Section 149 of the IPC, rather the convicted accused including
the present applicant/appellant no.2 has been held liable for their
individual act.
26. The main allegation against the present applicant is that he had
assaulted by knife to the informant namely Ratnesh Pd. Chauhan.
The said informant has stated that he is unable to move without any
support and feels trouble to discharge urine and stool. He has stated
in his further statement that present applicant/appellant no.2 had
given him knife blow injury which was corroborated by investigating
officer i.e., P.W.-10 in para-39 of his cross examination.
Further it is alleged specifically in FIR that the present
applicant/appellant no.2 had given knife blow injury to the said
informant when he rushed to save his brother.
27. But the aforesaid part of testimony and allegation has not been
substantiated by the medical evidence since as per the evidence of
Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh, P.W.-11, the informant has received some
injury caused by hard and blunt object, therefore this particular
finding of the doctor creates suspicion regarding the veracity of the
alleged culpability of the present applicant/appellant no.2.
28. Further, it appears that the learned trial court itself has doubted the
prosecution story by observing that the entire family members
including the father, mother, grandfather and all brothers have been
implicated in this case, therefore, the exaggerated version of
witnesses to implicate the entire family members is creating doubt.
6
29. Further investigating officer has stated that he went to the house of
accused along with Anuj Chouhan and as per his confessional
statement, he recovered a knife from a Water Drum. Thus, from this
part of testimony it is evident that only one knife has been recovered
and seized in this case but the said knife was not sent for its
examination to connect the complicity in the commission of crime.
30. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of
the considered view that since the prosecution version has not been
substantiated by the medical evidence because as per the finding of
P.W.-11 that injury caused to the informant was caused by the hard
and blunt object which is totally contrary to the prosecution version
wherein it has been stated that the present applicant no.2 has inflicted
injury to the informant by means of knife but the said knife was not
sent for its examination to connect the complicity in the commission
of crime. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant no.2
has been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal may be allowed.
31. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed.
32. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in
connection with S.T. Case No. 184 of 2021 arising out of Loyabad
P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021.
33. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying
pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Saurabh/-
7
[ad_1]
Source link