Jharkhand High Court
Amblus Kandulna @ Emlus Kandulna @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 552 of 2020
Amblus Kandulna @ Emlus Kandulna @ Ambulus Kandulna --- --- 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. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
03/27.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed and
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.P.P. on the prayer for
suspension of sentence made by the appellant through I.A. No. 3853 of
2021.
This appellant along with Mariyanus Dungdung and Clement
Kalyan Topno stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section
302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment dated
22.02.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2018 by the court of
learned Sessions Judge, Simdega and all of them have been sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and a default
sentence each under Section 302/34 I.P.C and further sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and a default
sentence each under Section 201/34 I.P.C. by the impugned order of
sentence of the same date. All the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the case of the
informant wife of the deceased P.W.5, the deceased had developed illicit
relationship with Romila since 6 months back. The marriage between the
deceased and informant was about 3 years old The informant was
informed by P.W.2, maternal aunt (mausi) about participation of the
deceased in a ring ceremony of Romila and that he was caught and tied by
the accused persons, who refused to release him. Later on during search
the dead body was recovered from the river, buried in sand with foul smell
emitting. It is submitted that the incidence is said to have occurred on
22.01.2018 as per the informant while the F.I.R was lodged on 14.02.2018
after recovery of the dead body. P.W.2 in her deposition has not named
the appellant even though she claims to have gone to the house of the
convict Mariyanus Dungdung, who is the brother of Romila. The name of
the appellant has transpired from the confession of Marianus Dungdung
recorded on 14.02.2018 along with other convict Clement Kalyan Topno.
The appellant was arrested on 17.02.2018 but nothing was recovered from
his possession or his house pursuant to the confession of the convict
Mariyanus Dungdung. Appellant is not related to Romila or Mariyanus
Dungdung. There is no eye witness to support the occurrence and the dead
body was recovered after about 22 days of the incidence in a decomposed
manner. The Doctor P.W.6 after conducting the post mortem examination
on 15.02.2018 by Ext 3 has opined that death was caused due to throttling
leading to asphyxia and cardio respiratory failure. It is submitted that
appellant has been convicted without any admissible evidence except the
confession of Mariyanus Dungdung. Therefore, appellant, who has
remained in custody since 18.02.2018 i.e., about 3 years and 6 months
may be enlarged on bail by suspending his sentence.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that the
appellant along with two other accused persons was instrumental in
causing death of the husband of the informant on account of vengeance
due to his illicit relationship with the sister of other accused Mariyanus
Dungdung. The accused Mariyanus Dungdung in his confession has
clearly stated the involvement of this appellant and one Clement Kalyan
Topno in the commission of the crime. Therefore, appellant may not be
enlarged on bail.
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.
Having regard to the statement of P.W.2, which is the basis of information
to the informant wife of the deceased P.W.5 that she has not named the
appellant as having been present in the house of Romila or Mariyanus
Dungdung on the date of incidence and further that the name of the
appellant has transpired only upon the confession of Mariyanus
Dungdung, Ext.5 and there is no recovery from the possession of
appellant, we are inclined to grant the privilege of suspension of sentence
to the appellant.
Accordingly, the appellant, 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 Sessions Judge, Simdega in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2018 with the condition that he
and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without
permission of the learned Trial Court.
I.A. No. 3853 of 2021 stands allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
A.Mohanty
