Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1023 of 2019
Amit Kumar Gupta ....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 : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
---
03/17.08.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar and
Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the
prayer for suspension of sentence made by this appellant through I.A. No. 3478
of 2021.
Sole appellant along with co-convicts, Ram Pratap Gupta, Deepak Gupta
and Kanchan Devi stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections
304-B of I.P.C by the common impugned judgment dated 07.09.2019 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 303 of 2013/Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2014 by the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Sahibganj and have been sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each
and a default sentence each by the impugned order of sentence dated
13.09.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the
husband of the deceased. She submits apart from the related witnesses i.e.,
P.W.9, father of the deceased, P.W.8, brother of the deceased, P.W.5, cousin
brother of the deceased and P.W.6, another brother of the deceased, other
independent witnesses such as P.Ws. 3 and 11 have turned hostile. P.W.4 is a
hearsay witness. It is submitted that no repot of Forensic Science Laboratory
has been obtained to confirm that death was homicidal in nature by using
kerosene oil. It is submitted that appellant has remained in custody for about
one and half months less than 8 years since 2 nd October, 2013 i.e., the date of
incidence. Apart from burn injuries, the Doctor (P.W.10) has not found any
other ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased. Other co-convict being
father- in-law and mother in law of the deceased have been enlarged on bail by
order dated 14th July, 2021 passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1001
of 2019. It is submitted that there is a girl child born out of the wedlock whose
upbringing needs to be taken care of by the appellant-father. Therefore,
appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed
the prayer. It is submitted that deceased died due to 90% burn injury in the
matrimonial house within one and half years of her marriage with preceding
demand of dowry of Rs. 1.00 Lakh and consequent torture on non-fulfilment
thereof. The Investigating Officer has also seized a plastic jerkin of 05 liters
containing 02 liters of kerosene oil and a half burnt mosquito net from the place
of occurrence. Appellant being husband has not explained the cause of
unnatural death in his own house in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act
and has also not discharged the burden under Section 113B of the Evidence
Act. She further submits that the victim was being tortured due to giving birth
to a girl child so the plea of custody of the girl child presently lying with the
maternal grandparents is neither here nor there. Therefore, appellant may not be
enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials from the Lower Court Records including
the period of custody undergone by the appellant.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances as
borne out from the materials on record and the period of custody of about one
and half months less than eight years served by the appellant, 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-1st, Sahibganj in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 303 of 2013/Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2014 with the condition that
appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number
without permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 3478 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
