Jharkhand High Court
Mritunjay Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 119 of 2023
Mritunjay Rai ........... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .......Respondent.
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kr. Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
----------------------------
th
03/Dated: 28 April, 2023
I.A. No.899 of 2023
1. The present interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant
for suspension of sentence in connection with S.T. Case No.210 of 2011 arising
out of Sarath (Chitra) P.S. Case No.75 of 2010 during pendency of the present
criminal appeal which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction
dated 28th November, 2022 and order of sentence dated 30th November, 2022
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur, Deoghar, whereby
the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with
fine of Rs.50,000/- for the said offence and in default of payment of fine he shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the
learned trial court while convicting the appellant has not taken into consideration
the testimony of doctor, since, the doctor has not conclusively proved that the
death was caused due to any injury given by the husband, rather, it has come in
the evidence that the death has occurred due to consuming some poisonous
substance. The further submission has been made that the appellant has shown
his bona fide by carrying the deceased--wife to the hospital when she was
vomiting along with his son. It has been submitted that his son has been
examined as defence witness and deposed before the court that the death of his
mother has been caused due to vomiting and when she was carried to the
hospital by his father she died.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid fact
submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence may be suspended.
4. Learned A.P.P. submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the
appellant to take the ground that death has caused due to vomiting. The injury
was found in the neck. It has been submitted by referring to the finding recorded
by the learned trial court based upon the testimony of the witnesses that the
deceased--wife was firstly assaulted in the neck and, thereafter, forcefully
administered with the some poisonous substance which ultimately led to her
death.
5. Learned A.P.P. on the basis of the aforesaid background has submitted
that it is not a fit case, where the sentence be suspended, since, the testimony
against the appellant conclusively proved his active involvement in the crime.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the testimony of the witnesses, as available in the Lower Court Records as also
by going through the finding recorded by the learned trial court found that all
the witnesses have supported the prosecution version having been corroborated
by the medical evidence, wherein the doctor has given its opinion that hyoid
bone was fractured.
7. This Court has found from the discussion made by the learned trial
court that the case is based upon circumstantial evidence and by taking into
consideration the opinion of the doctor has given its finding that the bone of the
neck was found to be fractured which suggests that the death was caused due
to throttling. The sign of the injury has been found on the body of the deceased
which was witnessed by the witnesses, as per the reference made to that effect
in the inquest-report. Further the news about the death of the deceased was not
given to the family members of the deceased and deceased was also found from
the place of occurrence.
8. This Court after considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that it is
not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.
9. Accordingly, the I.A. No.899 of 2023 stands dismissed.
10. However, any observation made herein will not prejudice the issue in
merit, as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit Pandey/-
