Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Yadav @ Daroga Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1291 of 2017
Chandan Yadav @ Daroga Yadav .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
--
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P
---
04/ 11.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sabyasanchi and Mr.
Satish Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the prayer
for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 3371 of
2021.
Sole appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under
sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated
29.06.2017 passed in S.C Case No. 249 of 2015 by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj and has been sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and default
sentence by the impugned order of sentence dated 30.06.2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim, wife of
the appellant died within ten days of her marriage on account of severe burn
injuries sustained by blast of gas cylinder while cooking in the kitchen as has
been stated by independent witness- co-villager of the same village of the
appellant. Appellant and his family members first took the victim to the hospital
at Sahibganj and after first aid she was taken to Malda for better treatment,
where she breathed her last on 1st June, 2015 at about 2.00 p.m. The prosecution
witnesses such as P.W.3 the informant-father, P.W.4, her mother and P.W.5, her
uncle have deposed in a similar manner about demand of dowry and torture on
non-fulfilment of dowry immediately after the marriage, but there are no reports
to that effect to corroborate it. They are not the eye witnesses either. The Doctor
(P.W.7) who conducted the post-mortem (Ext.-1) has opined that death was due
to shock caused by 100% burn of whole body and is within 24 hours. No ante-
mortem injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. If the victim has
suffered 100% burn injuries, it is wholly unlikely that she could have spoken to
her family members incriminating the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant
has remained in custody since 2nd June, 2015 i.e., more than 6 years and more
than half of the custody. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by
suspending his sentence.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He
submits that the death has occurred in the matrimonial house within 10 days of
the marriage with preceding demand of dowry and consequent torture soon
before her death. Appellant, who was in the house, has not discharged his burden
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, though death was in unnatural
circumstances, As such, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the relevant materials relied upon by them from the
Lower Court Records, including the period of custody undergone by the
appellant.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that
the appellant has remained in custody for more than 6 years by now against the
sentence of 10 years imposed upon him, we are inclined to grant bail to the
appellant by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, appellant, above-named, shall be released on bail, during the
pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj, in connection with S.C Case
No. 249 of 2015 with the condition that the appellant and his bailors shall not
change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned Trial
Court.
I.A. No. 3371 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
