Jharkhand High Court
Munna Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1236 of 2019
1.Munna Thakur
2.Shiv Prasad Thakur @ Sheo Prasad Thakur --- --- 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 : Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
06/28.10.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellants Mrs. Jasvinder
Mazumdar and Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, learned A.P.P. on the prayer for
suspension of sentence made by the appellant-1 Munna Thakur
(husband) through I.A. No. 5015 of 2021.
Both the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable
under sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned
judgment dated 13.09.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2016 by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau and have
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, by
impugned order of sentence dated 19.09.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant no.1 husband submits that earlier
the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant no.2 father-in-law
was allowed vide order dated 14.07.2021 taking note of the fact that as
per the statement of the informant P.W.4 he had paid Rs.20,000/- to the
appellant on deposit of the motorcycle as surety. It has also been taken
note of that the post mortem report suggested suicidal death caused by
asphyxia due to hanging and there was no external ante mortem injury on
the body of the deceased. Further the appellant no.2 had remained in
custody for 5 months less than 6 years i.e., more than half of the sentence
of 10 years awarded. The appellant no.1 husband is in custody since
03.12.2015 and by now has completed almost 5 years and 10 months of
custody. It is submitted that on similar grounds as has been taken note of
in the order dated 14.07.2021 passed in the case of appellant no.2, the
present appellant no.1 also deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending
his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the death
occurred within 6 months of the marriage in an unnatural circumstances in
the matrimonial house regarding which, appellant has failed to give any
cogent explanation to discharge his burden in terms of Section 106
read with Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that
prosecution witnesses such as P.W.1 to P.W.4 are consistent on the point
of demand of dowry and complain of torture upon the deceased. As such,
prayer for bail may be rejected.
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. On consideration of the materials on record, it appears from the
statement of the informant P.W.4 that he had paid Rs.20,000/- to the
appellant on deposit of the motorcycle as surety and that there was no
external ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased as per the post
mortem report and also that appellant no.1 has remained in custody for
almost 5 years 10 months by now. Taking into account the above facts and
circumstances, 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-IX,
Palamau in connection with Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2016 with the
condition that he and his bailors shall not change 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. 5015 of 2021 is allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
