Jharkhand High Court
Kanchan Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1001 of 2019
1. Kanchan Devi
2. Ram Pratap Gupta
3. Deepak Gupta ....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 Appellants : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P
---
05/14.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar and
Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the
prayer for suspension of sentence made on behalf of appellant nos. 1 and 2
through I.A. No. 2575 of 2020.
All these three appellants along with one Amit Kumar Gupta (Husband)
stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B of I.P.C by the
common impugned judgment dated 07.09.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.
303 of 2013/Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2014 by the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-1st, Sahibganj and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and a default
sentence each by the impugned order of sentence dated 13.09.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant no. 1 is the
mother-in-law now aged 62 years, whereas appellant no. 2 is the father-in-law
now aged 67 years. It is submitted that apart from the related witnesses i.e.,
P.W.9, father of the deceased, P.W.8, brother of the deceased, P.W.5, cousin
brother of the deceased and P.W.6, another brother of the deceased, other
independent witnesses such as P.Ws. 3 and 11 have turned hostile. P.W.4 is a
hearsay witness. It is submitted that no repot of Forensic Science Laboratory
has been obtained to confirm that death was homicidal in nature by using
kerosene oil. It is submitted that appellant no. 1 has been in custody since 19 th
December, 2013 while appellant no. 2 has been in custody since 22nd
November, 2013 i.e., almost 5 and 4 months less than 8 years respectively
against the sentence of 10 years awarded upon them. Therefore, they may be
enlarged on bail by suspending their sentence.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He
submits that the present appellant nos. 1 & 2 are mother-in-law and father-in-
law, who were residing in the same house in which the occurrence took place.
However, learned counsel for the State does not dispute the period of custody
undergone by the appellant nos. 1 & 2.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and the facts and circumstances noted above, including the period of
custody undergone by the appellant nos. 1 & 2 respectively. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances noted above and the period of custody undergone
by these two appellants, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant nos. 1 & 2,
namely, Kanchan Devi and Ram Pratap Gupta on bail by granting them the
privilege of suspension of sentence. Accordingly, appellant nos. 1 & 2, namely,
Kanchan Devi and Ram Pratap Gupta, shall be released on bail, during
pendency of this appeal on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Sahibganj in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 303 of 2013/Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2014 with the condition that the
appellants and their bailors shall not change their address or mobile number
without permission of the learned Trial Court.
Consequently, I.A. No. 2575 of 2020 stands disposed of.
Let the name of Mr. Ravi Prakash appear as learned A.P.P in the
cause list henceforth in place of the erstwhile learned A.P.P., Mr. Satish Kumar
Keshri.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
