Suspension of sentence granted where injuries classified as simple and lack of intent to kill evidenced by trial court findings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of all the appellants, namely, (1). Dasai Oraon; (2). Munna Oraon and (3). Pappu Oraon, under Section 430 (1) of the BNSS , 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 23.12.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 192/2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 507 of 2022, whereby appellant no. 1 has been convicted under sections 307 I.P.C. and 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and in case of default in depositing the fine amount, the appellant no. 1 has been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 /34 of the I.P.C. and in case of default in depositing the fine amount, the appellant no. 1 has been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2. Further the appellant no. 2 and 3 has been convicted under sections 304/34 Part-1 and 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 304/34 Part-1 of I.P.C. and in case of default in depositing the fine amount, the appellant no. 2 and 3 has been directed to under SI for 6 months and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a year and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 323/34 of the I.P.C. and in case of default in depositing the fine amount, the appellant no. 2 & 3 directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.

3. After some argument, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he does not want to press this Interlocutory Application so far appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Munna Oraon and Pappu Oraon are concerned. However, he will be arguing the matter so far appellant no. 1, namely, Dasai Oraon is concerned.

4. Such submission has been made in presence of learned APP appearing for the State.

5. In view of such submission, the Instant Interlocutory Application is dismissed as not pressed so far as appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Munna Oraon and Pappu Oraon are concerned. However, so far appellant no. 1, namely, Dasai Oraon is concerned, the matter will be heard on the Interlocutory Application.

6. It has been contended on behalf of appellant no. 1, namely, Dasai Oraon, that there is no intention to kill which would be evident from the judgment passed by learned trial Court. It has been submitted that no fatal blow has been caused by the appellant no. 1. Further, the doctor P.W. 8, who has examined the deceased before his death has opined that the injuries were simple in nature.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 has further contended that so far role of appellant no. 1 is concerned, it is stated in the FIR that he assaulted the wife of the informant by the brick but the doctor has found the nature of injury to be simple in nature.

8. It has further been submitted that there was no pre- meditation, which would be evident from the consideration so made by learned trial court in the finding so recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis that the appellant no. 1 is having the age of more than 50 years and as such his case may be considered for suspension of sentence.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant no. 1 based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.

11