Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Nath Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 April, 2023
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 659 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 659 of 2022
------
1. Bhola Nath Mahto
2. Sulochana Devi @ Sulochani Devi
3. Digendra Kr. Mahto @ Digendra Kumar
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate
--------
Order No. 08: Dated: 26 April, 2023
th
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
I.A. No. 3430 of 2023
The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf
of the appellant no. 3 with a prayer to enlarge the appellant no. 3 on
bail during the pendency of this appeal which has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2022 and order of
sentence dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge VI, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2018 arising of
Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 142 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.
2349 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been
convicted for the offence u/s 498 A/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine for Rs. 5,000/- each and
in default of payment of fine they are further directed to undergo SI
for 15 days further convicted u/s 304 B/34 of IPC sentenced to
undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each
and in default of payment of fine, they are further directed to
undergo SI for two months and further convicted u/s 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 659 of 2022
pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they are
further directed to undergo SI for 15 days; however, all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
It has been pointed out that witnesses examined on behalf of
the prosecution are high interested witnesses in view of the fact that
P.W. 6 is the informant and father of the deceased, P.W. 1 mother of
informant, P.W. 3 Bhabhi and P.W. 4 is the brother of the deceased
and they are highly interested witnesses and their statement cannot
be relied upon.
Further, it has been pointed out that P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 are the
independent witnesses and they have not supported the case of the
prosecution as there is not specific allegation of torture and cruelty
caused by the appellant for the demand of dowry. Further it has
been submitted that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging
herself and the same was supported by the P.W. 5 Doctor who had
conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased and opined
that the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia resulting of
hanging and no other injury except the ligature mark on the body of
the deceased. Further it has also been pointed out that the deceased
had been suffering with the depression and the appellant had tried
his best to cure her disease of mental illness and admitted her
several times for treatment and in support of the defense the
medical reports of the deceased have been exhibited as Exts. A, A/1,
B, B/1 and C to C/4 and therefore, it is a case of suicide because of
mental illness of the deceased and there is no evidence for causing
torture and cruelty for want to demand of dowry and thereafter she
was killed. Further, it is submitted that appellant no. 1 Bhola Nath
Mahto and appellant no. 2 Sulochana Devi were directed to be
enlarged on bail vide order dated 13.02.2023 of this Court and
therefore the appellant no. 3 deserves to be enlarged on bail. The
appellant no. 3 (husband) is in jail for more than two years and this
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 659 of 2022
appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and therefore the
appellant no. 3 deserves to be enlarged on bail. The appellant no. 1
is father-in-law and appellant no. 2 is mother-in-law and appellant
no. 3 is husband.
On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. opposed the contentions
raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that there are direct
evidence of demand of dowry and thereby causing the death of the
deceased by killing her for want of fulfillment of demand of dowry
and hanged her with ceiling and the medical evidence and other
witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants squarely supported
the case of the prosecution, therefore, the appellant no. 3 does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case.
It is a case of dowry death where the appellant no. 3 is the
husband, P.W. 1 (the mother), P.W. 6 (the father), P.W. 3 (the
Bhabhi) and P.W. 4 (the brother) of the deceased have been
examined on behalf of the prosecution have categorically stated that
there was a demand of dowry and a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was also
given and another Rs. 5 lakhs was demanded and since the demand
of second installment of Rs. 5 lakh was not fulfilled, therefore the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband
soon before her death and lastly the deceased was killed by the
appellant. It has also been pointed out that form the depositions of
P.W. 1 (the mother), P.W. 6 (the father) of the deceased that they
sold the land and have fulfilled the demand for Rs. 5 lakhs and since
another demand of Rs. 5 lakhs could not be fulfilled and therefore
their daughter was killed by the appellant. P.W. 7 is the Mukhiya
(head of the village) and he categorically stated that a sum of Rs. 5
lakh was given as a dowry by the parents of the deceased and there
was further demand of dowry which was not fulfilled and therefore
the deceased was killed and after killing she was hanged and it was
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 659 of 2022
fully supported by the medical reports and another Exhibits.
In this view of the matter, it is found that it is not just and
proper to not enlarge the appellant no. 3 on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer of the appellants for the grant of bail
is hereby rejected.
I.A. No. 3430 of 2023 gets disposed of.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 659 of 2022
Let the case be listed for hearing under the heading "for
hearing" as and when this appeal is mentioned for early hearing of
this appeal on merit before the appropriate Bench.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
