Jharkhand High Court
Dhananjay Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 640 of 2020
Dhananjay Pandey --- --- 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. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
---
06 / 14.06.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava and Mr.
Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence
made by this appellant through I.A. No. 558 of 2021.
The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated 19.10.2020 rendered in Sessions
Trial No. 366 of 2015 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Garhwa
and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 of I.P.C. and in default whereof, further sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, by the impugned order of sentence dated
21.10.2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that occurrence took place on
8th April, 2015 and the victim was brought to Mission Hospital at Sarguja in
Chhattisgarh on 9th April, 2015, where she died due to burn injury during the course
of treatment on 13th April, 2015. Though a written complaint was lodged by the elder
brother of the victim, P.W. 6, informant on 14 th May, 2015, but the F.I.R was
instituted at Ranka Police Station on 20th May, 2015 after one month without any
explanation. There is no witness to the occurrence. It is submitted that P.W. Nos. 1
and 2, sister-in-law (Bhabhi of the deceased) who were in the adjacent house, have
not stated anything about the involvement of this appellant or his presence at the time
of occurrence. According to them, she got burn injuries while cooking. It is
submitted that sheet anchor of the prosecution is the dying declaration which was
recorded by P.W.-18 on 10th April, 2015. The dying declaration does not appear to be
voluntary, rather was influenced by the brother and other family members of the
deceased parental family. P.W. 18 has stated that the patient was not able to speak
properly. She was speaking slowly. To understand the same, this witness took help of
companions. There was no certificate of the doctor that the patient was in conscious
condition. No other prosecution witness has stated that the appellant was in the house
at the time of death, rather it has come in the statement of the appellant under Section
313 Cr.P.C and also in the statement of the prosecution witness that the appellant had
gone for Jajmani and was staying in the house of the brother-in-law on the said night
where he came to know about the incident. It is stated that the patient was referred to
RIMS, Ranchi, but she was deliberately brought to Mission Hospital at Sarguja in
Chhattisgarh by P.W. 6 i.e. elder brother of the deceased and other family members.
Therefore, the delay in institution of the F.I.R and failure on the part of the
prosecution to show the presence of this appellant in the house at the time of
occurrence apart from lack of corroboration of the purported dying declaration of the
deceased by Medical Officer or any other independent witnesses creates a grave
doubt upon the entire prosecution story and the findings recorded by the learned trial
court. Therefore, appellant who is in custody since 18th September, 2015 may be
enlarged on bail by granting him the privilege of suspension of sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that since the
death occurred at Mission Hospital at Sarguja in Chhattisgarh during treatment,
where Fardbeyan was lodged by the informant (P.W.6), the FIR was registered after
some delay because the occurrence took place under Ranka Police Station in the
district of Garhwa in Jharkhand. Therefore, there is no deliberate delay. It is further
submitted that veracity of the dying declaration and that the statement was made
voluntarily in a conscious state of mind by the victim without any influence is
unquestionable, since in the first place, P.W. 18, Nayab Tahsildar, Ambikapur
recorded the statement of the victim on being nominated by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Ambikapur. P.W. 18 has clearly stated that though, the victim was badly
burnt and was not in a position to speak, but the dying declaration was recorded in a
question answer form wherein she was speaking slowly. It is submitted that P.W. 16,
Dr. Archana Arthur, who examined the victim after her admission at 3:15 a.m. in the
morning on 9th April, 2015 found her condition to be very serious but she was in
conscious state. The dying declaration was also recorded in the presence of the nurse.
The signature of P.W. 13 on the dying declaration shows her presence at the time of
recording dying declaration which she has acknowledged at the time of recording her
statement.
Learned A.P.P. further submits that the prosecution witnesses no. 1 and 2 are
the inmates of in-laws' house of the deceased and her sister-in-law, one of them
being the elder cousin sister of the deceased. It is pointed out that the conduct of the
appellant is completely inexplicable since he continuously evaded interrogation by
the police and surrendered after 5 months on 18th September, 2015. The incident
occurred in the house of the appellant but the appellant has not given any cogent
explanation to discharge the burden, neither has any witness been produced on behalf
of the defence. The appellant always used to torture her on her objection to his
drinking habit. Therefore, on the fateful night, he poured kerosene oil on her while
she was cooking, as a result, she was badly burnt, which ultimately lead to her death.
The post-mortem report (Ext. 4) produced by P.W. 17, Dr. Ashok Kumar Toppo also
shows lacerated wounds in different parts of her body, apart from the burn injuries
sustained in the matrimonial home. Therefore, the appellant may not be granted the
privilege of suspension of sentence.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the material evidence on record relied upon by them from the lower
court records. The dying declaration was recorded by P.W. 18 in question answer
form after he was appointed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambikapur in which the
deceased has clearly stated that appellant poured kerosene oil on her while she was
cooking which caused her burn injuries to her as she used to object his drinking
habits. It further appears that the conduct of the appellant in evading appearance
before the Investigating Agency for five months till he surrendered on 18 th
September, 2015 is inexplicable given the fact that the occurrence occurred in his
own house.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the
privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellant, at this stage. Accordingly, the
prayer made in I.A. No. 558 of 2021 is rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
jk/
