Pankaj Kumar Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4991 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 32 of 2021

             Pankaj Kumar Verma                      ---          ---    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. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate
              For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, A. P.P
                                         ---
06 / 22.12.2021      Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar and

learned A.P.P. Manoj Kumar Mishra on the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant made through I.A. No. 4336 / 2021.

2. The sole appellant along with Dinesh Kumar Verma stand convicted for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 131/2017 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Jamshedpur and both of them have been sentenced to undergo R.I for two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and a default sentence each under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and they have been further sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and a default sentence each under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned order of sentence dated 29.08.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim was married on 23.06.2012 and death has occurred on 14.11.2016, as alleged in the FIR lodged by the Informant-father (PW-4). Victim had two daughters and she had complained to her father on phone and asked him to take her back on 14.11.2016. However, Informant-father (PW-4) has stated that when she went to the place of occurrence, his granddaughter Ananya has stated that Dinesh Kumar Verma (brother-in-law) and his sister had killed her mother by strangulation. There is no specific overt act of strangulation alleged against this appellant. Moreover, the Informant father has stated that one year before the occurrence when the deceased had come to her parental home with her husband, she was happy and did not complain of any torture. It is submitted that the brother-in-law Dinesh Kumar Verma has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.11.2020 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 129/2020. Appellant has been in custody since 15.11.2016, except for the period of seven days when he was on provisional bail on account

of death of his mother. As such, he has completed more than half of the sentence awarded. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4 Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer. He submits that the appellant is the husband and death has occurred within seven years of marriage. Doctor (PW-6) who has adduced post-mortem report (Ext.1) has found ligature mark over upper part of neck; abrasion over under surface of left chin; victim was also found to be carrying small foetus; ligature mark and abrasion has been caused by hard and blunt substance. Appellant has not given any explanation as to the cause of death in the matrimonial home to discharge his onus under section 106 and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials relied by them from the lower court records including the period of custody undergone by the appellant till date. On consideration of materials on record, particularly the statement of the Informant-father (PW-4), it appears that his granddaughter told him that the deceased was done to death by other co-accused Dinesh Kumar Verma and his sister and that the deceased while she had come back to her parental house one year before the occurrence with her husband, was found to be in happy mood and did not make any complain. Appellant has remained in custody for more than half of the sentence by now. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant Pankaj Kumar Verma 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-VII, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 131/2017 with the condition that the Appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court and Appellant and his bailors shall also furnish their Aadhar Card before the learned Trial Court at the time of his release. I.A. No. 4336 / 2021 stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Ranjeet/