IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 928 of 2024 Sunil Kumar Hembrom, aged about 30 years, son of Late Mahavir Hembrom, resident of Village- Narsighdih, P.O. & P.S.-Barlanga, District-

Ramgarh … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ----------

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI -------

For the Appellant : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.

-----

Order No.07/Dated: 28.01.2026 I.A. No. 16573 of 2025

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 20.06.2024 in S.T. No. 33 of 2022 arising out of Gola P.S. Case No. 101 of 2021, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and directed to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 of the IPC and undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for three months.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case where appellant has falsely been implicated without taking into consideration, in right perspective, the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, who have been considered by the learned trial court as the eye witnesses. It has been contended that the said eye witnesses in their respective testimony have not confirmed the narration of the entire prosecution version to the Investigating Officer, which would be evident from the perusal of the testimony of the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W. 6.

3. The testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 are also not acceptable in view of the testimony of the doctor, who has been examined as P.W. 7 and found the nature of injury to be serious having been found in the lungs and in such situation the injured person will not be in a position to say a word, as is being projected by the prosecution witnesses particularly, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, who have deposed in their evidences that it is the deceased who has disclosed the name of the present appellant being the person who has given bullet injury in his chest.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the instant interlocutory application, therefore, is fit to be allowed, since, prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the charge upon the appellant said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

5. While on the other hand, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the present interlocutory application is the second one, since, the first interlocutory application being I.A. No. 10881 of 2024 has been withdrawn on behalf of the appellant after some argument.

6. He has contended that all the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of the appellant had already been advanced by the learned counsel at the time of consideration of the issue of suspension of sentence in the earlier interlocutory application being I.A. No. 10881 of 2024 and since the Court was not satisfied in passing the order for suspension of sentence, thereafter, the learned counsel representing the appellant has withdrawn the said interlocutory application after some argument.

7. He has also submitted that whatever argument has been advanced to demolish the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, the same is not part of the testimony, since, no question to this effect for disbelieving the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, who have been considered to be the eye witnesses, has been put as a question in the cross- examination of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, even by way of suggestion.

8. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, since, they have narrated the entire prosecution version said to be committed before them and the name of the appellant