Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 690 of 2019
Ajay Mandal ....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. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S. P. Roy, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Spl. P.P
---
03/28.06.2021 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K.Kashyap,
assisted by Mr. S. P. Roy and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made on
behalf of this appellant through I.A. No. 2444 of 2021.
Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 & 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the
impugned judgment dated 14th February, 2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 85
of 2014 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda and has
been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- and a default sentence under Section 302 of I.P.C and further
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and a default
sentence under Section 201 of I.P.C by the impugned order of sentence dated
19th February, 2019.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the
prosecution is not supported by any eye witness or any independent witness.
Out of six prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 1 & 3 have been turned hostile,
whereas P.W. 2 regarding whom the brother of the deceased (P.W.4) says that
information was given by him, has in his deposition stated that he had no idea
about the incidence. It is submitted that informant had died during trial and
P.W. 4 is the only witness upon whom the entire prosecution case depends apart
from the Medical Officer (P.W.5), who conducted the post-mortem and
Investigating officer (P.W.6). It is submitted that as per the case of the
prosecution, the marriage between the deceased and this appellant was 25 years
old, but the spouses did not have any issue. The appellant had remarried after 15
years of the marriage as per the statement of P.W. 4. P.W. 4 has also stated
about a case under Section 498(A) of I.P.C between the deceased and the
appellant instituted 10 years ago, in which as a compromise half of the property
of the appellant was given to her. He has further stated that a maintenance case
was instituted two years after the case under Section 498(A) that means 8 years
before the death. It is further submitted that the post-mortem report shows the
cause of death as Asphyxia due to strangulation, but apart from ligature mark
½" in width seen around the neck, there is no such injury on the body showing
struggle, which could lead to the conclusion that the deceased had been
strangulated to death. Out of the two persons, who were committed for trial, the
other accused-second wife of the appellant has been acquitted of the charges as
the prosecution has not been able to prove it beyond shadow of all reasonable
doubt. In the wake of such insufficient material on record and no immediate
motive or cause for causing death of the victim at the hands of the appellant,
who had been married with her for 25 years, appellant has been punished for no
cogent reason. He surrendered before the court below on 12th August, 2013 i.e.,
within 20 days of incidence and since then he has been suffering incarceration.
Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail by granting him the privilege of
suspension of sentence.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He
submits that death has occurred in the matrimonial house and in unnatural
circumstances by strangulation. There is a previous history of matrimonial
dispute between deceased and the appellant and second marriage was also
performed by the appellant, out of which children had been born. Further, the
appellant has not been able to give any explanation to discharge his burden
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as to the circumstances showing the
cause of death. Therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken into note the relevant materials relied upon by them from the
Lower Court Records. It appears that except P.W. 4, who is the brother of the
deceased, there are no other witnesses, who have supported the prosecution
story. Moreover, P.W.2 from whom P.W.4 claims to have received information
of the death has clearly stated that he had no idea about the occurrence. He had
only signed on the inquest report. The post-mortem report shows the cause of
death as Asphyxia due to strangulation but except one injury ½" in width seen
around the neck as a Ligature mark, there is no other injury on the body
showing forcible strangulation. There are only abrasion on the toes. Appellant
has remained in custody since 12th August, 2013 i.e., about one and half month
less than 8 years by now.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are inclined to enlarge the
appellant on bail by granting him the privilege of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, appellant, named above, 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-III, Godda in connection with Sessions Trial
No. 85 of 2014 with the condition that the appellant and his bailors shall not
change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned Trial
Court.
Consequently, I.A. No. 2444 of 2021 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
