Pana Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4144 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 902 of 2017
     1.Pana Devi
     2.Ghina Yadav                                          --- --- Appellants
                                   Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                                 --- --- Respondent
                                   .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.

07/02.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Sabyasanchi and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. on the renewed prayer for suspension of sentence made by the appellants through I.A. No. 5789 of 2021.

Both appellants, mother-in-law and father-in-law along with the husband Umesh Yadav and brother-in-law Ganesh Yadav have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2017 passed in S.T. Case No. 62 of 2006 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa and all the convicts have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years by the impugned order of sentence dated 07.04.2017.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellants was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.07.2018. Appellants have renewed the prayer primarily on the ground of having undergone custody for more than half of the sentence awarded. He submits that lower court record would reveal that the appellants were arrested on 25.09.2005 i.e., immediately on the next date of the incidence and were released on 23.10.2006 i.e., they had undergone 11 months during trial and thereafter they are in custody since their conviction on 04.04.2017. Both the appellants are aged about 70 years. It is submitted that the brother-in-law of the victim Ganesh Yadav, one of the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 903 of 2017 has been released on bail vide order dated 23.09.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking into account the period of more than half of the custody i.e., 5 years and 6 months undergone by him. It is submitted that appellants may also be released on that ground. He has referred to the opinion of the Medical Officer P.W.9, who in his cross examination, has stated that this type of death can be caused by sudden pressure even after fall on the edge of the bed.

Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the victim was married for 6-7 years and on information by the accused/ husband, the informant, brother of the victim P.W.4 went along with other persons and saw that the victim was dead. Some of the neighbours of the sasural of the victim also stated that on reaching there after hearing hulla, they saw the deceased being beaten and her neck was being pressed. The doctor P.W.9 has also opined that cause of death is because of throttling and strangulation. Therefore, appellants may not be granted bail.

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the lower court record including the period of custody undergone by the appellants. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above and that appellants mother-in-law and father-in-law aged about 70 years have undergone custody for about 5 years and 6 months and also that on similar consideration the brother-in-law of the victim Ganesh Yadav has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 903 of 2017 vide order dated 23.09.2021, we are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence to the appellants.

Accordingly, both appellants, named above, during the pendency of this appeal, shall be enlarged 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, Garhwa in connection with S.T. Case No. 62 of 2006 with the condition that they and their bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the learned Trial Court and that appellants as well as their bailors would also submit the Aadhar Card before the court below at the time of furnishing bail bonds.

I.A. No. 5789 of 2021 is allowed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) A.Mohanty