Binod Singh @ Vinod Singh And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

I.A. No.5819 of 2019

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. representing the State as well as informant on the prayer for suspension of sentence

made by appellant no.1 (Binod Singh @ Vinod Singh) through an interlocutory application bearing No.5819 of 2019, during pendency of the appeal.

Both the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant no.2,

Shrawan Singh was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-b)a/26 of the Arms Act vide impugned judgment dated

05.12.2018 rendered by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No.605 of 2015 and both the

appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302

of the IPC; appellant no.2, Shrawan Singh has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the

offence under Sections 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 26 of

the Arms Act; both the appellants have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- under

Section 27 of the Arms Act with default sentence vide order dated 06.12.2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that daughter of the deceased is the informant (P.W.5) upon whose fardbeyan the instant FIR was

instituted. She alleged that these two appellants came on a motorcycle while she was standing in front of her house in the morning on 15.12.2014 at

09:30 A.M. and threatened that they are going to kill her mother. She did not pay any heed to it but at 13:30 hours, her elder sister, Sanju Devi,

resident of Ranchi informed her on telephone that mother has received gun-shot injury and has died. She thereafter went to the court-yard of Bal

Mukund Singh (P.W.2) and found the dead body of her mother lying. She has alleged that there is previous land dispute between the accused persons

with her mother. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the wake of such allegations, independent witnesses P.W.1 (Chhema Devi) and

P.W.2 (Bal Mukund Singh) in whose house the occurrence took place, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Ashok Singh (P.W.3), son of

Bal Mukund Singh (P.W.2) has also not supported it. Similarly P.W.4 (Raju Singh), an independent witness has also turned hostile, apart from P.W.2

and P.W.3. Sanju Devi daughter of the deceased, who allegedly informed the informant on phone has not been examined. P.W.5 (Rekha Devi) during

trial has categorically stated that her sister, Sanju Devi did not name the accused persons, who had fired upon mother. In this case there is no eye

witness to the occurrence. However, learned trial court on completely erroneous appreciation of evidence has convicted these appellants for the

charge of murder being guided by the fact that the fire-arm was recovered from the house of co-appellant, Shrawan Singh, but co-appellant, Shrawan

Singh has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by suspending his sentence vide order dated 26.03.2019. There is no

difference in the case of the present appellant with that of co-convict, Shrawan Singh. Therefore, appellant should be enlarged on bail since he is in

custody from the date of conviction i.e. 05.12.2018 except a period of 15 days of provisional bail and during trial he was on bail.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and informant have strongly opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It is

submitted that motive for commission of offence is previous enmity due to land dispute with informant's mother. Accused persons have also

threatened in the morning to kill her mother and thereafter committed the offence around 01:30 in the afternoon. P.W.5 (informant), P.W.6 (her

husband), P.W.7 (her brother) and P.W.8 (husband of the deceased) all have supported the prosecution case. The fire-arm has been recovered from

the house of the co-appellant, Shrawan Singh and therefore, the appellant no.1 (Binod Singh @ Vinod Singh) should not be enlarged on bail.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State as well as

informant. We have also taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case including the relevant material evidence relied upon by the parties from

the lower court records. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the fact that co-appellant, Shrawan Singh has already been enlarged on

bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by suspending his sentence vide order dated 26.03.2019 and the case of the present appellant appears to be

similar to that of the co-appellant and no one being the eye witness of this case, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant no.1 (Binod Singh @ Vinod

Singh) on bail during the pendency of the appeal by granting the privilege of suspension of sentence.

Let appellant no.1 (Binod Singh @ Vinod Singh) be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/-(twenty

thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in connection with

Sessions Trial Case No.605 of 2015 with a condition that appellant and his bailors should not change their residential address without prior permission

of the learned trial court.

Interlocutory Application No.5819 of 2019 stands disposed of.