Jharkhand High Court
Umesh Yadav @ Umesh Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 903 of 2017
1.Umesh Yadav @ Umesh Kumar Yadav
2.Ganesh 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. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
07/22.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Sabyasanchi and Mr.
Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by
the appellant no.1(Umesh Yadav @ Umesh Kumar Yadav) through I.A.
No. 5900 of 2021.
Both appellants, husband and brother in law respectively along
with accused Pana Devi mother-in-law and Ghina Yadav, father-in-law
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 appellant no.1 submits that appellant no.1
is the husband but he himself informed the informant brother-in-law
(P.W.4) about the serious illness of his wife where after informant, his
father and uncle went to see the deceased. It is submitted that P.W.9 is the
Doctor, who has conducted post mortem examination and opined that
death is caused due to throttling and strangulation. However, in cross
examination he says that such ligature mark on the neck may be caused by
sudden pressure even after fall on the edge of the bed. It is submitted that
there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The witnesses who are villagers
of the deceased have not stated anything about the complicity of the
accused persons in committing the crime. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.7
out of 9 prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and P.W.1, P.W.4 and
P.W.5 are related witnesses out of which P.W.4 is the informant and
brother of the deceased; P.W.5 is father of the deceased and P.W.1 is uncle
of the deceased. Appellant has remained in custody for about 6 years and
6 months by now including the period of custody from 26.09.2005 when
he was arrested and till he was granted bail on 09.03.2007. The brother-in-
law of the deceased - Appellant no.2 has already been enlarged on bail by
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2021 also taking
into consideration the period of custody of 5 years and 6 months against
the sentence of 10 years. Further co-convicts Pana Devi and Ghina Yadav
have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.11.2021 in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 902 of 2017. Therefore, appellant may also be enlarged
on bail by suspending his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that death
occurred within 7 years of the marriage in the matrimonial home in
unnatural circumstances and the appellant has not been able to give any
cogent explanation to discharge his burden in terms of Section 106
read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, appellant 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 appellant
no.1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above, the
period of custody undergone by the appellant and that appellant no. 2 has
been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
23.09.2021 and that co-convicts Pana Devi and Ghina Yadav in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 902 of 2017 have been enlarged on bail by this Bench
vide order dated 02.11.2021, we are inclined to grant the privilege of
suspension of sentence to the appellant no.1.
Accordingly, appellant no.1, named above, during the pendency of
this appeal, shall be enlarged 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, Garhwa
in connection with S.T. Case No. 62 of 2006 with the condition that he
and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without
permission of the learned Trial Court and that appellant no.1 as well as
his bailors would also submit the Aadhar Card before the court below at
the time of furnishing bail bonds.
I.A. No. 5900 of 2021 is allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
