Prabhu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3974 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
              Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1151 of 2017
                              --------

1. Prabhu Mahto, s/o late Ramal Mahto

2. Laxminiya Devi, w/o Prabhu Mahto Both are r/o village-Goundalpura, PO & PS-Barkagaon, District-Hazaribagh. ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, APP

--------

Order No.05/Dated: 27th September 2022

I.A No. 6100 of 2021 This application for suspension of sentence has been assigned to DB-III by an order dated 9 th June 2022 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand on the administrative side.

2. The appellant no.2, namely, Laxminiya Devi alongwith her husband were convicted and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). They have been further convicted and sentenced to RI for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/- each under section 201 IPC.

3. I.A No. 6100 of 2021 has been filed on behalf of Laxminiya Devi who is the appellant no.2 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1151 of 2017.

4. By an order dated 20th November 2018 passed in I.A No. 9034 of 2018, the application for suspension of sentence moved by the appellant no.2 and her husband in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1151 of 2017 has been dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant no.2 submits that cause of death of Lalita Devi who is the daughter-in-law of the 2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1151 of 2017

appellant no.2 was not established during the trial and there is no eyewitness who came forward to depose in the Court that immediately before the death Lalita Devi was assaulted by the appellant no.2, or that she has played a part in causing her death.

6. In Sessions Trial Case No. 458 of 2014, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses out of whom PW9 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Lalita Devi aged about 24 years and her daughter, namely, Shushma Kumari aged about 1½ years.

7. On examination of Shushma Kumari, the doctor has observed as under:

"On external examination both eyes closed. Mouth opened. Rigor mortis absent over both the upper and lower limbs. Whole body decomposed with few blisters found over the body with distention of abdomen seen. No any external injuries found over the whole body."

8. He has on examination of Lalita Devi made the following observations:

"On external examination both eyes open. Tongue protuded and black in colour and swollen found. Rigor mortis absent over both the upper and lower limbs. Whole body decomposed found. A piece of rope (thin non plastic) found over the neck to hanged over to the front of the body (chest wall). No any ligature mark found over the neck. External genetalias normal.

On neck dissection trackle wall both external and inner wall found normal. Hyoid bone normal. Internal both lungs intact and congested. Liver intact and congested. Spleen and Kidney found intact and congested. Heart both chamber empty. Stomach wall hemorrhagic congested and contains about 02 02 mucoid fluids fouel in smell found. Uterus normal and non gravid. Urinary bladder empty. Skull-brain matter intact and pale."

9. The learned counsel for the appellant no.2 would submit that she was separated in mess with her son and daughter-in-law and, therefore, she has no role to play in causing death of Lalita Devi.

10. The parents of Lalita Devi came in the Court to depose about harassment and torture of their daughter at the hands of her husband and parents-in-law. They have made a specific allegation of demand of Rs. 2 Lakhs in dowry from their daughter. The postmortem report reveals use of force as a piece of rope was found around the neck of Lalita Devi.

3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1151 of 2017

11. Though it is not necessary for an accused to lead evidence in a criminal case but where the prosecution has shown prima-facie case under section 304-B IPC, by operation of law an inference shall be drawn against the appellant no. 2 that she has committed the crime (section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

12. It is also not necessary for the prosecution to lead evidence through eyewitnesses and a fact can be very well proved by the prosecution through inferences drawn from the facts established. Henry David Thoreau has said that circumstantial evidence is like trout in the milk. That is to say, an eyewitness can tell lies in the Court but not the circumstances.

13. On the basis of the materials laid during the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge XII, Hazaribagh has recorded judgment of conviction against the appellant no.2. We find no mitigating circumstance at this stage to suspend the sentence awarded to her in Sessions Trial Case No. 458 of 2014 arising out of G.R Case No. 2497 of 2013 corresponding to Barkagaon PS Case No. 99 of 2013.

14. Accordingly, I.A No. 6100 of 2021 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Amit/