Jharkhand High Court
Rabindra Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1294 of 2018
Rabindra Thakur ....Appellant
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. Binit Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
---
06/30.11.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Binit Chandra and learned
A.P.P, Mrs. Vandana Bharti on the prayer for suspension of sentence made by
this appellant through I.A. No. 6453 of 2021.
This appellant along with three others stand convicted for the charge
under Sections 306/34 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 30.07.2018 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 329/2012 by the Court of
learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-
each and default sentence, vide impugned order of sentence dated 01.08.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is the husband.
It is further submitted that the death has occurred at Giridih, whereas the
informant-father (P.W.7) has, in his deposition at paragraph 14, stated that the
appellant was posted at Chatra at that time. The Investigating Officer (P.W.8)
has, in his deposition at paragraph nos. 7 & 8, stated that during investigation,
he came to know that the appellant is employed as a Constable in Chatra and
the fact that he was at Chatra, was found to be correct. Another Investigating
Officer (P.W.11) has stated that he has recorded the statement of witnesses,
who had stated that there was no dispute between the deceased and inmates of
matrimonial home. Her relationship with the inmates of matrimonial home was
good. Her health was not good. Therefore, she was suffering from
depression. On the date of incidence, her uncle Brahamdeo Thakur was also
present in her matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that though, Brahamdeo Thakur, uncle of the victim, who accompanied her to
her matrimonial house and was present at the time of occurrence, but
surprisingly, his statement was not recorded during investigation by the
police, nor was he cited as a prosecution witness, nor examined during trial.
Altogether 11 prosecution witnesses were cited in the charge-sheet. D.W.1
Anup Thakur and D.W.2 Puran Manjhi, though cited as prosecution witnesses,
were surprisingly not produced on behalf of prosecution to support their case.
Therefore, adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act can be
inferred. The victim was found to have consumed pesticides 'organo-
phosphorous' as per F.S.L. report. The doctor (P.W.6), who conducted the post-
mortem on the dead body of victim on 21.09.2009, did not find any ante-
mortem injury on her body. It is further submitted that upon consideration of
the materials on record, other convicts, Satendra Thakur, Basudeo Thakur and
Lokan Thakur, who are brothers and father of the appellant had been enlarged
on bail by suspending their sentence vide order dated 27.06.2019 passed in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 1295 of 2018 by this Court. Therefore, appellant who has
remained in custody since the date of conviction i.e., 30 th July, 2018, may also
be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer. It is
submitted that the death of a married woman in unnatural circumstances has
occurred within 7 years of marriage and Viscera Report (Ext.-3) shows that it
was due to consumption of pesticides. Appellant has not been able to explain
the circumstances relating to death, though he is the husband. Therefore,
appellant may not be enlarged no bail.
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant and the State and taken note of the materials relied upon by them
from the Lower Court Records, including the period of custody undergone by
the appellant.
It appears from the statement of Investigating Officer (P.W.8) that
the appellant was present at Chatra at the time of occurrence as found during
investigation as he was employed as a Constable there. It further appears that
uncle of the deceased who had accompanied her to the matrimonial home and
was present at the time of occurrence, has not been examined as a witness, nor
his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been adduced by the prosecution.
There were no ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, though she is
found to have consumed poison as per Viscera Report.
Considering the materials on record and the fact that other
convicts, who are brothers and father of the appellant have been enlarged on
bail by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2019 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.
1295 of 2018 and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, we
are inclined to grant bail to the appellant by suspending the sentence during
pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, appellant, above-named, shall be
released on bail, during the 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 District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih
in connection with Sessions Trial No. 329/2012 with the condition that
appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number
without permission of the learned Trial Court. Appellant and their bailors shall
also furnish their photo copy of Aadhar Card before the Trial Court at the time
of his release.
I.A. No. 6453 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Jk/
