In an appeal, the Court found that the discrepancy between the charge of shooting from a firearm and the absence of corresponding injury warranted a case to suspend the sentence and grant bail.
Sentence suspended and appellant released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.408 of 2013 ====================================================== Mundrika Yadav .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI) 4 22-01-2014 Re: I.A. No. 1742 of 2013 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
It has been submitted, on behalf of the accusedappellant, Mundrika Yadav, that according to the evidence on record, this accused-appellant is alleged to have shot on the neck of the deceased by a bullet fired from the fire-arm held by this appellant, but no corresponding injury on neck was either noticed at the time of inquest nor was any such corresponding injury was, according to the post mortem report, found and, hence, the evidence on record, in such circumstances, ought not to have been considered sufficient to warrant conviction of the accusedappellant.
Though we express no final opinion on the correctness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.408 of 2013 (4) dt.22-01-2014
2/2
or veracity of the evidence adduced by the eye witnesses, we are of the view that in the light of the submissions, which have been made on behalf of the present accused-appellant, a case calling for suspension of his sentences and for bail has been made out.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, while suspending the sentences passed against the accusedappellant by the learned trial Court, we direct that the appellant, named above, during the pendency of this appeal, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa (Nalanda), in connection with Sessions Trial No. 52 of 1988.
I.A. No. 1742 of 2013 shall stand disposed of.
(I. A. Ansari, J)
Mkr./-
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused-appellant pending the hearing of the appeal.
Whether the discrepancy between the charge of shooting and the absence of corresponding injury warrants suspension of sentence.
Mundrika Yadav
The State of Bihar
I. A. Ansari
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
