Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Pado Baskey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 242 of 2025
---------
Krishna Pado Baskey, age about 37 years, son of Jisu Baskey, resident of
village-Pawanpur Tola, Jojo, P.S.+P.O.- Patamda, Dist. East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand … … Appellant
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. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
———–
th
05/Dated: 11 April, 2025
I.A. No.2244 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for
suspension of sentence dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East-Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in S.T. Case
No. 269 of 2019 arising out of Patamda P.S. Case No.39 of 2018,
corresponding to G.R. No.2781 of 2018 whereby and whereunder, the
appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six
months for the offence under section 323 of IPC and imprisonment for 10
years and Rs.2,000/- fine, for the offence under section 307 of IPC, in
default of fine 2 months R.I.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that no case is being made
out for the offence said to be committed under section 307 of IPC for which
the sentence for 10 years has been inflicted upon the appellant by the learned
trial court.
3. It has further been contended that the issue of scuffle was the money, which
was to be given by the appellant to the informant in lieu of the purchase of
one cock.
4. It has further been contended by referring to the prosecution version wherein
it has been stated by the informant that the appellant, from back, has
assaulted with the danda which is a hard and blunt substance but the cut
injury has been found by the doctor in the temporal right parietal region
therefore, the prosecution version as has been narrated by the informant
itself is doubtful.
5. It has further been submitted that the FIR has been instituted after lapse of
four days even though, the police was having knowledge about the
commission of crime, since, the police itself has carried the injured to the
hospital but even then, no FIR was instituted forthwith.
6. Learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that the entire prosecution version
is doubtful, as such it is a fit case where the sentence may be suspended.
7. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
8. However, the reason for such objection is that the injury which has been
found by the doctor, is grievous in nature.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding
recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the
testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records and
other material exhibits appended therewith.
10.As per the materials available on record, the FIR has been instituted after
lapse of four days and as per the testimony of the doctor, who has deposed
that the injured was brought by the police itself but even then, the FIR was
not registered forthwith.
11. Further, as per the doctor the injury has been caused in the temporal region
of the injured but as per the narration given by the informant the injured has
been assaulted from back by the appellant with hard and blunt substance
(danda).
2
12.Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the statement of the informant has
not been substantiated by the medical evidence as the doctor who had treated
the injured has stated that injury has been caused in the temporal region.
13.This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the instant
interlocutory application needs to be allowed.
14.Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.2244 of 2025 stands
allowed.
15.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
District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, East-Singhbhum at Jamshedpur,
in S.T. Case No. 269 of 2019 arising out of Patamda P.S. Case No.39 of
2018, corresponding to G.R. No.2781 of 2018.
16.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.)
Pappu/-
3