Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1380 of 2017
Rakesh Kumar Singh ....Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi. A.P.P
---
11/14.12.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mahesh Tewari and
learned A.P.P, Ms. Kumari Rashmi on the prayer for suspension of sentence
made by the appellant through I.A. No. 6400 of 2021.
This appellant along with co-convict, Satish Kumar Singh have
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of I.P.C by
the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2017 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in connection with Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2007
and both the convicts have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for 10 years by the impugned order of sentence dated 10.07.2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier the prayer
for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected on consideration of the
materials from the Lower Court Records vide order dated 17th April, 2018 by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The prayer for suspension of sentence has
been renewed primarily on the ground that the appellant has been in custody for
about 7 years and 4 months by now i.e. much more than half of the sentence of
10 years imposed upon him. It is further submitted that the prosecution
witnesses like P.Ws. 3 and 4, who are of the same village as that of the
appellant did not support the case of the informant. P.W. 1 cousin sister of the
deceased, P.W.2 full brother of the deceased, P.W.5, brother of the informant,
P.W.7 mother of the victim and P.W.6, informant, all are hearsay witnesses,
who have spoken in one voice about preceding demand of dowry and
consequent torture on non-fulfilment thereof. It is submitted that considering
the period of custody, appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer. She submits that death of
the victim has occurred within 2 years of marriage in the matrimonial house and
the post-mortem report (Ext.-4) adduced by the Doctor (P.W.9) shows
injuries like ligature mark on the neck and blood stain on right ear. The
viscera was also sent for forensic examination and F.S.L. report (Ext.5) shows
presence of organo-phosphorous pesticide in the viscera. 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 relied upon by them from the Lower
Court Records, including the period of custody undergone by the appellant by
now.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above and the
period of custody of 7 years and 4 months undergone by the appellant against
the sentence of 10 years, 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, Garhwa in connection with Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2007,
subject to the conditions that appellant and his bailors shall not change their
address or mobile number without permission of the learned Trial Court.
Appellant and their bailors shall also furnish photo copy of their Aadhar Card
before the learned Trial Court at the time of his release.
I.A. No. I.A. No. 6400 of 2021 stands allowed.
Learned A.P.P. would enquire whether the other accused Mostt.
Mani Kuwar whose trial was separated, has been apprehended or not, if so,
what is the stage of the trial. Let an affidavit to that effect be filed within a
period of 4 weeks.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
