Munna Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2338 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1236 of 2019
                                               ---

1. Munna Thakur

2. Shiv Prasad Thakur @ Sheo Prasad Thakur--- --- Appellants 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. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate
              For the Respondent:      Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P
                                         ---
05 / 14.07.2021      Heard learned counsel for the Appellant Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar and

learned A.P.P for the State Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by the Appellant No. 2-Shiv Prasad Thakur @ Sheo Prasad Thakur through I.A. No. 2936/2021.

2. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 13.09.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 276/2016 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, by impugned order of sentence dated 19.09.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that in this case, total five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, of which PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4 are related witnesses while PW-5 is the doctor who conducted post- mortem on the body of the deceased and has adduced post-mortem report as Ext.2 which says that death was suicidal in nature caused by asphyxia due to hanging. The Informant has stated in his deposition that there were scratches on the neck, but he says that he has stated such facts for the first time during trial. The doctor (PW-5) has found ligature mark 1" running round the neck from anterior to posterior up to the nape of the neck and the Trachea was depressed and congested; no external ante mortem injury has been found which could suggest that it was homicidal death. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that in this case, Informant has also stated that this appellant (father-in- law of the deceased) has deposited his motorcycle as surety while taking Rs. 20,000/- from him. In such a situation, it cannot be alleged that payment of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of surety of the motorcycle could be termed as dowry. Though prosecution witnesses no. 1, 2 & 3 being brother, mother and younger

sister of the deceased respectively, had spoken about the assault and torture on the deceased and that the deceased had called on mobile to inform about this fact before her death, but no proof of such call has been adduced during the trial in the nature of CDR by the prosecution. It is submitted that though death has occurred within six months of the marriage in unnatural circumstances, but the same has no connection with any demand of dowry. The prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer which caused serious dent in the entire prosecution case. Moreover, no independent witness has either been examined. It is further submitted that this appellant who is now about 60 years old, is in custody since 03.12.2015 i.e. five months less than six years which is more than half of the custody as against the sentence of ten years awarded. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.

4. Learned AP.P has opposed the prayer. He submits that death occurred in unnatural circumstances in the matrimonial house regarding which, appellants have failed to give any cogent explanation to discharge their burden in terms of section 106 read with section 113-A of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses such as PWs-1, 2 and 3 as well as PW-4-the Informant (father-in-law) have categorically stated about the demand of dowry on more than one occasion by the accused persons and complain of torture upon the deceased. As such, appellant being the father-in-law, has been rightly convicted for the offence. He may not be enlarged on bail.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken into note the materials relied upon by them from the lower court records as also the period of custody undergone by the Appellant No. 2 till date. On consideration of the materials on record, it appears from the statement of the Informant (PW-4) that he had paid Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant on deposit of motorcycle as surety. It further appears from the post-mortem report that death was suicidal in nature caused by asphyxia due to hanging and there was no external ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased. It further appears that the Appellant No. 2 (father-in-law) has remained in custody for five months less than six years i.e. more than half of the sentence awarded. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to enlarge him on bail by suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant No. 2-Shiv Prasad Thakur @ Sheo Prasad Thakur 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-IX, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 276/2016 with the condition that he and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos. without permission of the learned Trial Court. I.A. No. 2936/2021 stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Ranjeet/