The court ruled that the evidence did not support a conviction for murder as the assault was not fatal, justifying the suspension of the sentence.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.11192 of 2024

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.03.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in connection with Session Trial No. 61 of 2021, arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 144/2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 21/2021 [T.R. No. 2694/2021], whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that even the entire prosecution case to be taken in entirety to be accepted, then also no case for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. is made out, since, as per the version of P.W.-8, the informant herself has deposed that due to the quarrel with respect to the issue of disturbance in electricity power supply, scuffle took place, which led the issue of assault and ultimately, the deceased succumbed to injury.

3. It has been contended that the blow, which has been given by the appellant, cannot be said to be fatal blow, since, the doctor has opined that the death was caused due to cardio respiratory failure.

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for more than four years and as such, it is a case for suspension of sentence.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended by him that P.W.8, the eye-witness, has fully supported the prosecution story.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and also the testimony available in the lower court records and other material exhibits.

7. We, on consideration of testimony of P.W.8 dispute erupted between the deceased and the present appellant on the issue of the power supply in both the houses, which led in scuffle, due to which the assault has been given by the present appellant. The doctor has opined that the death is caused due to cardio respiratory failure. The appellant have already remained in custody for about more than 4 years, as such, the appellant deserves to be released on bail after suspending the sentence.

8. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. No.11192 of 2024 is hereby allowed.

9. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in connection with Session Trial No. 61 of 2021, arising out of Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 144/2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 21/2021 [T.R. No. 2694/2021].

10. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.