Jharkhand High Court
Tribhuwan Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 615 of 2020
Tribhuwan Das ....Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
---
06/30.09.2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari for the State on the
prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 6221 of 2020.
2. Sole appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2020
passed in Session Trial No.29/2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge - IX,
Giridih and has been sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence vide impugned order of sentence
dated 20.10.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the case of the
informant mother (P.W. 6), the victim was married about 11 years back, but
there were repeated demands of dowry. She has alleged that on information
when she went to the daughter's house on 30.10.2016, she was alive though
burnt and had narrated the incidence regarding setting her on fire by the
appellant - husband, the mother-in-law, the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law
(Gotani). It is submitted that the prosecution examined nine witnesses and the
defence has also adduced four witnesses including the 11 year old daughter of
the deceased - D.W. 4. It is submitted that P.W. 1 - the sister-in-law has in her
deposition stated that the deceased locked herself in the room and got herself
burnt. There was no quarrel and no demand of dowry. The relationship between
the deceased and the accused persons were good. It is submitted that the
neighbour of the victim's matrimonial home - P.W. 4 has stated that deceased
got burnt while lighting candles. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem
Exhibit-1 i.e. P.W. 8 has found 90% superficial burn injury with an abrasion
and bruise over right arm. He has answered to the court's question that abrasion
in the hands may be caused due to breaking of bangles in course of saving the
body or by falling on the ground. In his cross-examination, he has stated that a
person with 90% burn will not be in a position to speak properly. He has also
deposed that it may be an accidental injury.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the day on which the
occurrence occurred was a Diwali day. As per the P.W. 1, the victim had
opposed the repeated demands of cracker by the daughter, but the appellant left
for the market to purchase the cracker thereafter. This peeved the wife and she
got burnt inside her room. The statement of the informant - mother and the
father - P.W. 3 that the deceased was alive and was able to speak, stands
negated by the report of the Medical Officer. It is submitted that the defence
witnesses have narrated the true story relating to the dispute on the purchase of
cracker at the insistence of her daughter. The 11 year old daughter of the
deceased D.W. 4 has stated in her deposition that her mother got burnt in the
night of Diwali. At that time, her father had gone to market to purchase
crackers. Fire caught her inside the house. When she shouted, then they rushed
and saw her mother burning. The door was locked from inside. Her father came
after 5 to 10 minutes of the occurrence and then she was taken to Sadar
Hospital, Giridih from where she was referred to Dhanbad, but she died on way
to Dhanbad. She has denied the suggestion that her maternal grant parents who
came to see her mother, were told by her mother that her father and her family
members had set her on fire. The testimony of a child cannot be untruthful.
P.W. 7 - the next door neighbour of the appellant has also stated that the
appellant had gone to bring cracker on daughter's insistence.
5. However, the learned court has proceeded to convict the appellant-
husband under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code even though none of the
ingredients thereof were established. The appellant is in custody since
02.11.2016, about one month less than five years, therefore, he may be enlarged
on bail.
6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the prosecution
witness such as P.W. 2 Bhabhi (sister-in-law), P.W. 3 - father, P.W. 6 -
informant (mother), all have supported the prosecution story which finds
corroboration from the medical evidence i.e. post-mortem report. Therefore, the
appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
7. It is submitted that the other three accused persons were arrested and a
supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against them. As per his instruction,
the case was at the stage of framing of charge.
8. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and
taken note of the materials relied upon from the Lower Court Records including
the period of custody undergone by the appellant. Having regard to the
materials on record that the marriage was 11 years old, the incidence took place
on the day of Diwali, the deceased's daughter D.W. 4 - 11 year old stated that
her mother got burnt when her father had gone to buy crackers from the market
and that the post-mortem report adduced by P.W. 8 Doctor (Exhibit - 1) shows
that the victim had sustained 90% superficial burn, which may be accidental
burn and the abrasions may be caused due to falling to save herself, we are of
the opinion that the appellant, named above, should be enlarged on bail by
suspending his sentence during pendency of this appeal, more over since he has
been in custody for about 4 years and 11 months till date, 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,
Giridih in connection with Session Trial No.29/2017 with the condition that the
appellant and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number
without permission of the learned Trial Court.
9. Consequently, I.A. No. 6221 of 2020 stands disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)
Pankaj/Saurav
