Basudeo Yadav And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence of appellant no.2, Nageshwar

Yadav @ Gogal Yadav made through I.A. No. 6203 of 2019.

Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 & 302/34 of I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated 11th May, 2018

rendered in Sessions Trial No. 75 of 2014 by the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, XIII, Hazaribag and have been sentenced to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and a default sentence under Section 302 of I.P.C and further sentenced to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months under Section 323 of I.P.C by the impugned order of sentence dated 17th May, 2018.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that informant is the wife of the deceased (P.W.3) while the appellant, Basudeo Yadav is her own son-in-

law and appellant no.2, Nageshwar Yadav @ Gogal Yadav is her Dever (brother-in-law). It is further submitted that as per informant she has five

daughters and youngest daughter, Ruby Kumari (P.W.4) was married with Saryu Yadav (P.W.5) who stayed with her as Gharjamai since she has no

son while her cousin father-in-law and mother-in-law, who were issueless also stayed with them. It is submitted that allegation is that with an intent to

grab the land, such offence has been committed by the two accused persons. However, from the evidence of P.W.4, youngest daughter, Ruby

Kumari and D.W.1, Deo Chand Sao, who had adduced the partition document dated 15th March, 1990, it is evident that the informant’s husband

and his brother including this appellant had got partitioned their property much before and they are living in their own separate houses. As per the

evidence of P.W.5 husband of P.W.4 and youngest son-in-law of the informant, informant’s husband had executed deed of landed property in

favour of his youngest daughter before the marriage. It is further pointed out that P.W.2, who is cousin father-in-law stays with the informant but has

not stated having seen the occurrence. Apart from P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, no one else has supported the case of the prosecution while independent

witnesses such as P.Ws. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 all of them have turned hostile. By reference to the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.-4) adduced

by P.W.11, it is submitted that Doctor has stated that such injury would be caused due to fall on hard surface. Injuries of the informant are simple in

nature (Ext.-3). As such, it is a case of false implication of the present appellant no. 2 out of grudge along with other son-in-law of the informant.

Appellant has been in custody since 17th September, 2013 i.e., little less than 6 years. Therefore, appellant no. 2 may be enlarged on bail during

pendency of this appeal.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He submits that the informant is the wife of the deceased and eye witness to the assault

committed by the two appellants inside her house. P.Ws. 4 & 5 have also shown his presence in the house at the time of assault. As per the evidence

of doctor, deceased died due to injuries on the head, six of which were grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. As such, appellant no.

2 should not be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal at this stage.

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and the State and also gone through the facts and circumstances noted

above, including the relevant material evidence relied upon by the parties from Lower Court Records.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the statement of the doctor (P.W. 11) during trial and the custody undergone by the

appellant no. 2 till date, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant no. 2 on bail by granting him privilege of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, let the

appellant no.2, Nageshwar Yadav @ Gogal Yadav be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of District & Additional Sessions Judge, XIII, Hazaribag in

connection with Sessions Trial No. 75 of 2014, subject to the condition that appellant no. 2 and his bailors will not change their address without prior

permission of Trial Court.

I.A. No. 6203 of 2019 stands allowed accordingly.