Jharkhand High Court
Kurban Mian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 134 of 2021
1. Kurban Mian
2. Sarfan Bibi @ Purjan Bibi --- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
---
For the Appellants: Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Spl. P.P
---
03 / 04.10.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Pran Pranay and learned Spl.
P.P Mr. Shekhar Sinha on the prayer for suspension of sentence of these
appellants made through I.A. No. 3301/2021.
2. These appellants being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased
along with her husband Suleman Ansari and brother-in-law Lukman Ansari
stand convicted for the offence punishable under section 304B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2020 passed in Sessions
Trial No. 192/2017 by the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Deoghar and all the convicts have been sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years
with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and default sentence, by the impugned order of
sentence dated 05.10.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the prosecution
case, marriage was three years old and there was preceding demand of dowry
and even after repeated efforts of amicable settlement through panchayati,
accused persons did not spare the victim who died in unnatural circumstances in
the matrimonial home. It is submitted that there are omnibus and general
allegations and materials produced during trial against all the accused persons
regarding demand of dowry. However, there is no evidence that the victim was
subjected to torture soon before her death. There is no proof of any panchayati,
though witnesses like PW-3 who is the brother of the deceased, had stated so.
PW-5 had stated that the deceased was married for almost 8-9 tears. Medical
evidence shows that the victim died due to asphyxia and the manner of death
has been described as single turn of ligature mark imprinted over neck with
subluxation of cervical bone. During cross-examination, the doctor (PW-8) who
conducted post-mortem and adduced post-mortem report (Ext.-2), has deposed
that he has not observed any violence injury on the body of the deceased. He
has not found any unnatural appearance over the deceased body. It is submitted
that the appellant no. 1 Kurban Mian (father-in-law) is 70 years old while
appellant no. 2 Sarfan Bibi @ Purjan Bibi (mother-in-law) is 65 years old and
they are suffering custody since the date of conviction on 29.09.2020.
Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail by suspending their sentence.
4. Learned Special P.P Mr. Shekhar Sinha has opposed the prayer. He
submits that the victim died within three years of her marriage in unnatural
circumstances in the matrimonial home. There was preceding demand of dowry
of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle soon before her death. Evidence of the
prosecution witnesses like PW-3 (brother) and PW-9 (mother) shows that the
efforts of panchayati failed. Therefore, they may not be enlarged on bail.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and taken note of the materials relied upon by them from the lower court
records. It appears that the prosecution has alleged general allegations against
the accused persons. Though some witnesses have stated that there was
panchayati, but no proof of such pancayati has been brought on record.
Appellants being father-in-law and mother-in-law, are 70 years and 65 years of
age respectively. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, we are
inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail by suspending their sentence during
pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, Appellants (Kurban Mian and Sarfan
Bibi @ Purjan Bibi) shall be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal,
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 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 192/2017 with the condition that
the appellants and their bailors shall not change their address or mobile nos.
without permission of the learned Trial Court. Appellants and their bailors shall
also furnish their Aadhar Card before the learned Trial Court. I.A. No.
3301/2021 is allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Ranjeet/
