Tika @ Hrudananda Das vs State Of Orissa

Â

These matters are taken up through Video  conferencing mode.   Â

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

In all these interim applications, arising out of four criminal appeals are under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Code†for brevity) the convicts-appellants, except Biku @ Sunil Prusty, the appellant in CRLA No.332 of 2017, pray for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail upon appeal.

Biku @ Sunil Prusty, the appellant in CRLA No.332 of 2017, has prayed for interim bail in I.A. No.831 of 2020 on the ground that his mother is

suffering from Spondylosis. She is being treated at S.C.B., Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack.

From the information received from the I.I.C., Purighat P.S., Cuttack, it is apparent that the mother of the appellant Biku @ Sunil Prusty is suffering

from spondylosis and undergoing treatment by Dr. Nihar Ranjan Nanda of Jholasahi, Cuttack. However, it is not the case of the appellant-Biku @

Sunil Prusty that there is nobody else to look after his mother. It is also apparent from the information received by the Court that his father Hrushikesh

Prusty is working as a delivery man for Zomato at Cuttack. His younger brother aged about 23 years is also working at Patia in a Security Agency.

His father and younger brother are looking after his mother. Besides that Kusumlata Prusty, the mother of the appellant/petitioner-Biku @ Sunil

Prusty, is able to take care of herself.

So, we are of the considered opinion that the convict-appellant-Biku @ Sunil Prusty has not made out a case for his release on interim bail. Hence,

I.A. No.831 of 2020 application for release on interim bail on the aforesaid medical ground is hereby rejected.

He had filed I.A. No.1884 of 2017 for interim bail on the ground of death of his grandfather and he had filed I.A. No.1815 of 2018 on the ground of

1st death anniversary of his grandfather. These two applications have become infructuous and are dismissed as such.

Mr. Manas Ranjan Khatua, Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik and Miss Dipali Mohapatra appearing for the appellants, namely, Tika @ Hrudananda Das,

Muna @ Bijan Kumar Das and Lucky @ Sidhartha Sankar Prusty in CRLA No.725 of 2017, CRLA No.245 of 2017 and CRLA No.331 of 2017

respectively have prayed for grant of bail upon appeal by suspending the sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.

In Misc. Case No.646 of 2017 arising out of CRLA No.245 of 2017 prayer of appellant-Muna @ Bijan Kumar Das earlier had been rejected by order

dated 12.12.2018.

In Misc. Case No.1489 of 2017 arising out of CRLA No.331 of 2017 prayer of appellant-Lucky @ Sidhartha Sankar Prusty had earlier been rejected

by order dated 12.12.2018.

In Misc. Case No.1801 of 2019 arising out of CRLA No.332 of 2017 prayer of appellant Biku @ Sunil Kumar Prusty @ Samal Prusty had been

rejected by order dated 12.12.2018.

A careful examination of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack relying upon the evidences of P.W.8

and P.W.12, the eye witnesses, the medical evidence coming forth in this case, chemical examination report and other attending circumstances, has

come to the conclusion that a conspiracy was hatched in pursuance of their common intention to commit murder of the daughter of the informant by

Biku @ Sunil Prusty by firing three rounds from his pistol. Therefore, they have been convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 342, 394

and 506/34 of the IPC and Sections 25(1-B) (a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. They have been sentenced to undergo various lengths of imprisonments

including imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the except appellant-Biku @ Sunil Prusty, no overt act has been attributed against

all other appellants and for the act done by appellant-Biku @ Sunil Prusty, these appellants/ petitioners should not be allowed to remain incarcerated

during the pendency of the appeals.

Sk. Zafrulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that appellant-Muna @ Bijan Kumar Das in CRLA No.245 of 2017 and one Sankar Mandal

against whom the case was split up on 16.12.2016, have several criminal cases pending against them and this is a case of murder arising out of

previous enmity and conspiracy to commit the murder.

Learned counsel for the appellants also argue that the informant and eye witnesses in this case are relations of the deceased and their evidences

cannot be taken into consideration and it should be viewed with suspicion.

In our considered opinion the evidences of eye witnesses appearing in this case cannot be viewed with a pinch of salt as they are natural witnesses to

the occurrence. The occurrence took place inside the house of the informant. So, the natural witnesses are the inmates of the house of the informant.

In such situation, it shall be ridiculous to look for an independent eye witness to the occurrence. Moreover, the evidences of the eye witnesses

corroborated each other in material particulars and are supported by the medical evidence available in this case. There are also enough materials on

record to show that the neighbours and tenants of the informant have attributed the overt act to them in their houses, before they trespassed into the

house of the informant.

So, we do not agree with the argument of the learned counsels appearing for the appellants that on analysis there is a good possibility and probability

of the appeals being allowed in favour of the appellants. Moreover, from the instructions received, it is seen that the appellant-Muna @ Bijan Kumar

Das in CRLA No.245 of 2017 has four other criminal cases. Another accused Sankar Mandal has six other criminal cases against him and as he

remained an absconder, his case was split up on 16.12.2016. Thus, having considered the totality of the material available on record, the criminal

antecedents of the two accused persons and the manner in which the crime was carried out, for the greater and larger interest of the State and

Society, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to suspend the sentence and to grant bail to the appellants.

Hence, all the aforesaid interim applications arising  out of said appeals are dismissed.

 ……………………….