Jharkhand High Court
Nityanand Tiwary @ Nityanand ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 174 of 2020
1. Nityanand Tiwary @ Nityanand Tiwari
2. Rohit Tiwary @ Rohit Kr. Tiwari
3. Shankar Tiwary
4. Chameli Devi ....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. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P
---
08/06.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arwind Kumar and
Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the
prayer for suspension of sentence made on behalf of appellant no. 4, Chameli
Devi, mother-in-law through I.A. No. 2558 of 2021.
All the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 498A/34, 304(B)/34 of I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated
25.01.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 211/2013, Sessions Trial No.
218/2013, Sessions Trial No. 38/2016 by the Court of learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih and have been sentenced to undergo
Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for the offence
punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of I.P.C and a default sentence and further
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs.
5,000/- each and a default sentence under Section 498(A)/34 of I.P.C by the
impugned order of sentence dated 27.01.2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per F.I.R lodged
by the informant-father (P.W.7), the allegation of torture due to non-fulfilment
of dowry is specifically against the husband. Other witnesses have also made
general and omnibus allegations against the accused persons. Appellant has
remained in custody during trial from 3rd July, 2013 to 14th February, 2017 i.e.,
3 years and 7 months and thereafter since conviction on 25 th January, 2020 i.e.,
one and half years till now in total more than 5 years. Appellant is 64 years old
by now. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by granting her the
privilege of suspension of sentence.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. She
submits that during post-mortem the Doctor (P.W.5) has found several ante-
mortem injuries. There was clotted blood in the interior part of the neck and
fractured of cavity bone on right side (Ext-1). Appellant no. 4, mother-in-law
and other accused reside in the same house as per the case of the prosecution.
Therefore, she has been convicted in aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. Hence,
appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the relevant materials relied upon by them from the
Lower Court Records. It appears from the evidence of father (P.W.7) that the
allegation of torture is against the husband, who is appellant no. 1. The present
appellant no.4, who is the mother-in-law has remained in custody for more
than 5 years by now. Therefore, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant no. 4,
namely, Chameli Devi on bail by granting her the privilege of suspension of
sentence. Accordingly, appellant no. 4, Chameli Devi, 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 District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 211/2013, Sessions Trial No. 218/2013,
Sessions Trial No. 38/2016 with the condition that the appellant no. 4 and her
bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of
the learned Trial Court.
Consequently, I.A. No. 2558 of 2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
