Jharkhand High Court
Rupesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 499 of 2015
Rupesh Kumar .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.N.Ojha, APP
--------
th
Order No.14/Dated: 27 September 2022
IA No.4933 of 2021
This application for suspension of sentence has been assigned to
DB-III by an order dated 9th June 2022 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice,
High Court of Jharkhand, on administrative side.
In Sessions Trial No. 372 of 2004, the appellant and his parents
are convicted and sentenced to RI for life under section 302 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 5000/- each. They are further convicted
and sentenced to RI for 3 years under section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code.
In Sessions Trial No. 372 of 2004 which commenced pursuant to
Petarwar PS Case No. 42 of 2004 which was registered for the offence under
sections 304-B and 328 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the prosecution examined five witnesses
out of whom PW-2 is the informant.
The learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant and his
parents drawing an inference from the circumstances which according to him
constitute a chain stronger than the account of an eyewitness.
In paragraph No. 20 of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 372 of
2004, evidence of Dr. Pramod Kumar who was examined as PW-4 has been
discussed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bermo at Tenughat to
draw an inference that death of Bimala Devi, wife of the appellant, was
homicidal in nature.
The doctor has observed physical injuries on the person of
Bimala Devi, however, he did not render an opinion whether the death was
homicidal and injuries were ante mortem in nature.
The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to viscera
report vide exhibit-5, which mentions that no metallic, alkaloidal, glycosidal
and pesticidal poison could be detected, to submit that the initial case of the
prosecution that Bimala Devi was poisoned by her husband and in laws has
not been found true.
The appellant is in custody since 5th June 2015 and during this
period he was released on parole for 30 days. It is stated that during the trial
he remained in custody for about 21 months from 7th May 2004 when the
dead body of Bimala Devi was found in her matrimonial home.
Mr. A.K.Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellant has,
therefore, submitted that the appellant who has remained in custody for more
than 9 years is entitled for suspension of sentence, particularly, for the reason
that there is no possibility of hearing of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 499 of 2015 in
near future.
The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to
the order dated 23rd September 2015 by which parents of the appellant have
been granted benefit of suspension of sentence in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.467 of
2015.
Mr. B.N. Ojha, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence during pendency of this criminal appeal.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances in the case, the
appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail, during pendency of
this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand
only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No.
372 of 2004, subject to the conditions that:
(i) the appellant shall deposit the fine amount within six weeks
from today, failing which he shall surrender before the Court concerned;
(ii) the appellant shall remain physically present or through his
authorized counsel in the Court whenever this criminal appeal is listed for
hearing in the Court, however, if no one appears on his behalf on the day
when this criminal appeal is listed on Board for hearing the State may file an
application for recall of this order, and;
(iii) the appellant shall disclose his present address and mobile
number to the Investigating Officer of the case.
IA No.4933 of 2021 stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned
and the concerned Jail Superintendent through FAX.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
SB/Nibha (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
