Badal Pal @ Janmejay Pal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4682 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 996 of 2019

              1. Badal Pal @ Janmejay Pal
              2. Jyotsana Pal @ Jyotsna Pal
              3. Prakash Pal @ Jogeshar Pal @ Jogeshwar Pal --- --- Appellants
                                              Versus
              The State of Jharkhand                 ---           ---   Respondent
                                                ---

              CORAM:         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
                         Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
                                                ---

For the Appellants: Mr. R.S. Majumdar, Sr. Advocate, Vikram Singh,Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Spl. P.P

---

03 / 08.12.2021 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned Special P.P.

Mr. Shekhar Sinha on the prayer for suspension of sentence of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, made through I.A. No. 3608/2021.

2. All the three appellants which include the husband, stand convicted for the offence punishable under section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 178/2016 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-F.T.C Offences against Women, Dumka and all of them have been sentenced to undergo R.I for life by the impugned order of sentence dated 27.08.2019.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that as per the prosecution case lodged by the Informant-father (PW-5), marriage of his daughter was solemnized on 10.03.2016 with the appellant no. 3-Prakash Pal @ Jogeshar Pal @ Jogeshwar Pal. On 17.06.2016 when he called his daughter at around 7.00 O'clock in the morning, she was quite well, but 30-35 minutes thereafter, his Samdhi (appellant no. 1) called him on his cell phone and asked him to come immediately as his daughter was serious. When he reached there, he saw that his daughter has passed away and her body was lying on the bed. She was taken to the Community Health Centre where the doctor declared her dead on arrival. It is submitted that five prosecution witnesses were examined, out of whom, PWs-2, 3 and 5 are brother-in-law, uncle and the Informant, father of the deceased. P.Ws-1 & 4 are the Medical Officers. Investigating Officer has not been examined. Medical Officers have adduced post-mortem report (Ext.1) which shows that death was due to asphyxia as a result of smothering. It is submitted that PWs-2 and 3 have supported the case of the prosecution, but the Informant in his deposition has categorically stated that

when he called his daughter on 17.06.2016 in the morning and asked her to come in the month of Aashadh, she said that son-in-law is asking for money, otherwise he would not allow her to go. He submits that, 40-45 minutes thereafter, her father-in-law called the Informant that his daughter is serious. It is submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 2.00 lakh is specifically against the son-in-law (appellant no.3) and there are no specific allegation against the father-in-law or mother-in-law of having demanded dowry, though omnibus allegation of torture have been alleged against them also. It is submitted that appellant nos. 1 and 2 father-in-law and mother-in-law are aged 67 years and 53 years respectively, as on date and they are in custody since 18.06.2016 i.e. about five years and six months. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail by suspending their sentence.

4 Learned Special P.P has opposed the prayer. He submits that the death has occurred within three months of marriage in unnatural circumstances due to preceding demand of dowry and there is allegation of torture against all the three accused / appellants herein. Medical evidence also shows that death was caused due to smothering and the victim had injuries on her upper and lower lips as a result thereof. In such circumstances, appellants who are father-in-law and mother-in-law and were residing in the same matrimonial home, do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the lower court records including the period of custody undergone by the appellants till date. It appears on consideration of the materials on record that the demand of dowry are specifically against the son-in-law though, all the three appellants were residing in the same house. As per the Informant (PW-5), his daughter (deceased) informed him of demand of dowry by the son-in-law and 40-45 minutes thereafter, father- in-law himself informed the Informant that his daughter is ill. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that father-in-law(appellant No. 1) be released on bail by suspending his sentence also taking into account the period of his custody for about five years and six months as well as his age. Accordingly, Appellant No. 1- Badal Pal @ Janmejay Pal shall be released on bail, during 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-II-cum-F.T.C Offences

against Women, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 178/2016 with the condition that the appellant no. 1 and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court and they shall also furnish their Aadhar Card before the learned Trial Court at the time of his release.

6. However, we are not inclined to enlarge the appellant no. 2-mother-in- law on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, her prayer for bail is rejected.

I.A. No. 3608/2021 is partly allowed and partly dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Ranjeet/