Jharkhand High Court
Amit Pradhan @ Amrit Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1608 of 2017
Amit Pradhan @ Amrit Pradhan
@ Amrit @ Amrit Ku Pradhan --- --- Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, A.P.P.
---
04/22.09.2021 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr. B.M.
Tripathy assisted by learned counsel Mr. N.K. Jaiswal and learned A.P.P. Mrs.
Priya Shreshtha on the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant
made through I.A. No.3717 of 2021.
2. Appellant husband along with the father-in-law and the mother-
in-law stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B of
the I.P.C. vide impugned judgment dated 30.06.2017 passed in S.T. Case
No.205/2016 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West
Singhbhum, Chaibasa and all the convicts have been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life vide impugned order of sentence dated 03.07.2017.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecution case instituted by the father / informant (P.W.3) alleges demand of
dowry of Rs.50,000/- resultant torture on non-fulfillment thereof for which a
case was lodged earlier and compromised. On 8th January 2016 on
information he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and saw her
dead. It was alleged that the appellant and the parents-in-law have burnt her to
death by pouring kerosene oil. It has come in the evidence of defence
witnesses that the appellant was out of the house for giving milk. In the
meantime he received a telephone call that his wife had been burnt and
thereafter he returned. It is submitted that the statement of P.W.4 that the
victim was alive and had narrated to her the manner of occurrence, is
unworthy of credence since she had suffered 90% burn as per the report of the
Doctor P.W.6 who prepared the post-mortem report on the next date 9th
January 2016 (Ext.2). At best it could be a case of suicide. Appellant has
remained in custody since 11th January 2016 i.e. about 5 years and 8 months.
The parents-in-law both have been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Cr.Appeal (DB) No.1596 of 2017 vide order dated 27th
January 2020. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail by suspending
his sentence.
4. Learned A.P.P. has strongly opposed the prayer. She submits that
P.W.4 Shakuntala Pradhan has categorically stated that after coming to know
of the occurrence from the maternal uncle of appellant, she went to the
matrimonial house of the deceased and found her alive. The victim informed
her that all the three convicts were instrumental in burning her and this
appellant had lit the matchstick after kerosene oil was poured by the mother-
in-law. It is submitted that the Doctor has also found smell of kerosene oil on
the body of the deceased and death has been caused due to shock and
asphyxia due to burning. The Investigating Officer (P.W.7) has also found
smell of kerosene oil at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the appellant being
the husband and the marriage was about 5 years old has been rightly
convicted for dowry death. He has not been able to discharge his burden as to
the circumstances in which the death occurred in his own home. Therefore, he
may not be enlarged on bail.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials on record relied upon by them from the
lower court records including the period of custody undergone by the
appellant.
6. Having regard to the statements of the informant / father (P.W.3)
regarding preceding demand of dowry and prior institution of a case in 2013
which was compromised on assurance by the accused persons and the
statement of P.W.4 in particular that she reached the place of occurrence and
found victim alive who narrated the manner of occurrence involving the
accused persons and also the post-mortem report (Ext.2), we are of the
considered opinion that the appellant being the husband does not deserve to
be enlarged on bail at this stage. I.A. No.3717 of 2021 is accordingly
rejected.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Shamim/
