Amit Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3894 Jhar

                                 -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    I.A. No.2355 of 2021
                           In
             Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.227 of 2021

     Amit Kumar Gupta                            ......     Appellant
                             Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                      .....   Respondent
                             ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.

---------

               th
06/Dated: 18        October, 2021
I.A. No.2355 of 2021

1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of ad-interim bail, to the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2021 and order of sentence dated 03.03.2021, passed by the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge - X -cum- F.T.C for offence against Women, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No.339 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of eight years and to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) to the mother of the deceased.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that alternatively charge has been framed against the appellant under Sections 304(B), 302 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but ultimately he has been punished for the offence under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. So far as unnatural death of the deceased is concerned, the only point taken by the appellant is that there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry and further it is a case of suicide, and as such there is no proof regarding abetment. On the above facts, prayer for suspension of the sentence has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P, has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and submitted that there is ante-mortem injury and the ingredients for the offence under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C is satisfied.

5. Considering the evidence available on record, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on bail, at this stage.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No.2355 of 2021 stands rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-