Polina Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1868 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 2008 of 2017
                                       .....

       Polina Devi                                             --- --- Appellant
                                       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 Appellant         : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Adv.
             For the State             : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
                                           ---

05/09.06.2021       Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Arwind Kumar and

learned A.P.P. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha for the State on the renewed prayer for suspension of sentence made on behalf of the appellant through I.A. No.2048 of 2021.

The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. by the impugned judgment dated 26th July 2017 in S.T. No.476 of 2013 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and a default sentence by the impugned order of sentence dated 28th July 2017.

Earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected on 7th March 2018 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after going through the LCR and on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant has however pressed the prayer for bail on the ground that the appellant has undergone custody of eight years by now since she was arrested on 12 th June 2013. Apart from that, learned counsel for the appellant submits that case of the prosecution is not based upon any legal evidence since there is no eye- witness to the occurrence. The step brother of the informant P.W.2 who gave the information of the alleged assault, has not been examined. P.W.1 who is the wife of the informant claims to have reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, on hearing the cries of her father-in-law and has only seen the appellant running away with the documents of land and property. It is further submitted that though Ext.4 is a part of the confessional statement of the appellant adduced by the P.W.4 Investigating Officer which has purportedly led to recovery of the weapon of assault i.e. iron rod, but the FSL report i.e. Ext.8, does not show any blood on it. Moreover, Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased, has not been

examined, rather the post-mortem report has been adduced as Ext.7 by the prosecution. The seizure list witness P.W.3 has turned hostile. As such the appellant who is the 3rd wife of the deceased, has been falsely implicated by the informant and his wife who are the son and daughter-in-law from the previous wife for grabbing the property of the deceased. This appellant is a lady and has undergone eight years of sentence by now, she may be enlarged on bail as there is little chance of appeal being heard in near future.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected after considering the evidence on record, on receipt of the LCR. The appellant who is the 3rd wife of the deceased, was seen fleeing after assaulting her husband and on her confessional statement the iron rod by which the assault was made, was also recovered.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken into account the submissions made by them as also the period of custody of eight years undergone by the appellant since she was arrested on 12th June 2013.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above and that the appellant is a lady who has remained in custody for eight years, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal by suspending the sentence. Appellant is directed to be released on bail 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-I, Ramgarh in connection with Sessions Trial No.476/2013 with the condition that the appellant as well as his bailors shall not change their addresses and mobile numbers, if any, without prior permission of the learned trial court. I.A. No.2048/2021 stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Shamim/