Jharkhand High Court
Usha Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1159 of 2019
.....
1. Usha Devi
2. Amleshwar Singh Choudhary --- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. -- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing
---
For the Appellants : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
---
03/20.07.2021 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants Mr. R.S.
Mazumdar and learned A.P.P. Mr. Ravi Prakash on the prayer for suspension
of sentence made through I.A. No.2921 of 2021 on behalf of the appellants
who are the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the victim.
2. These two appellants along with the husband stand convicted for
the offence punishable under Sections 304B of the I.P.C. by the impugned
judgment dated 14th November 2019 passed in S.T. No.238 of 2006 by the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad and have been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years vide impugned
order of sentence dated 18th November 2019.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that P.W.4
informant and brother of the victim claims to be present in the matrimonial
house of the victim on the fateful night i.e. 23 rd March 2006 after having
attended a marriage party along with his brother-in-law and was sleeping in
another home on the downstairs where his brother-in-law had also joined to
sleep. However, at around 1:00-1:30 P.M. his brother-in-law told him that the
victim had committed suicide by hanging. According to P.W.4, he saw her
body from outside the room and thereafter went outside the house and while
crying became unconscious whereas the brother-in-law along with his mother
and father fled away on a motorcycle. Learned Senior Counsel submits that
the P.W.4 in his cross-examination has stated that he came to senses at around
6 A.M. when his maternal uncle Anil Choudhary P.W.3 came. He has further
stated in paragraphs-11 and 12 of his deposition that he does not remember
when the demand of T.V., fridge, etc. were made between 2002, the year of
marriage and 2006. He has also stated that he does not know that his father
had made any complaint to the Police about demand of dowry since he was
staying out of the home. He had also not made any complaints. He had not
seen his sister being beaten up. He has further stated at paragraph-28 of the
cross-examination that the father-in-law was not there on the night of
incidence, but came in the morning. It is pointed out by reading the evidence
of P.W.1 mother of the victim that she has stated in her cross-examination that
there was no demand of dowry neither any report given to the Police. She has
further stated that her daughter was suffering from some mental disease and
had previously also made attempts to commit suicide. At paragraph-12 of her
cross-examination she has stated that her son got misled and instituted the
case. It is submitted that P.W.2 and 3 had turned hostile, though P.W.3 has
stated in his cross-examination that the father-in-law was not in the house on
the fateful night as he had gone to attend duty at Loyabad Colliery and
mother-in-law had gone to her Maike at Kharno. Learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant further submits that the Doctor P.W.5 who adduced the post-
mortem report (Exbt.3) has opined that it is a case of suicide and death was
caused due to asphyxia by hanging but no other external injury has been
reported. The father-in-law P.W.7 though has stated about the demand of
dowry intermittently but he has also stated that he had not made any
complaint of dowry anywhere earlier. Learned Senior Counsel further submits
that the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses P.W.1 mother and
P.W.4 brother of the deceased, create doubt as to the whole prosecution case
of demand of dowry leading to her death. The defence has also adduced
witnesses that the father-in-law was not in the house on the fateful night.
Taking all these circumstances into account, the conviction recorded against
these appellants who are mother-in-law and father-in-law, is not based on
cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, the appellants who are in custody
since the date of conviction, may be enlarged on bail by granting privilege of
suspension of sentence.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the
victim was carrying an embryo of six weeks and the death has occurred within
seven years of the marriage in the matrimonial house in unnatural
circumstances with a past history of demand of dowry by the accused persons.
P.W.4 who happened to be in the same house as that of the victim on the
fateful night, has clearly stated that the victim was beaten up by the accused
persons due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and he had gone to make
them understand not to do so. The victim had also complained of the torture
and she had been threatened. The statement of P.W.3 cannot be relied upon as
he has turned hostile. As such, the appellants do not deserve the privilege of
suspension of sentence at this stage.
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.
6. It appears from the statements of P.W.4 the informant and
brother of the victim that the appellant no.2 father-in-law was not in the house
on the fateful night, though in his examination-in-chief he says that his
brother-in-law husband of the victim fled away on a motorcycle along with
the mother-in-law and father-in-law and that he had fallen unconscious just
outside the house of the accused persons after the incidence while he was
crying. It further appears from the statement of P.W.1 mother of the victim
that she has denied any demand of dowry and stated that the victim was
suffering from some mental disease for which she had also tried to commit
suicide earlier.
7. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we are
inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to these appellants
who are mother-in-law and father-in-law during pendency of the appeal.
Appellants are directed to be released on bail 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-I, Dhanbad in
connection with S.T. No. 238 of 2006 with the condition that the appellants as
well as their bailors shall not change their addresses and mobile numbers, if
any, without prior permission of the learned trial court. I.A. No.2921/2021
stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Shamim/
