Jharkhand High Court
Meraj Pawariya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 883 of 2023
Meraj Pawariya, aged about 25 years, son of Asgar Pawariya,
Resident of Village & Post- Pandra, P.S. Kuru, District-Lohardaga
--- --- Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Afsana Khatun w/o Merag Pawariya D/o Rustam Parwariya
R/o vill- Dari Toli Colony, Po. + P.S.- Kuru, District- Lohardaga
--- --- Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
Order No.07/ Dated 07th November, 2023
I.A. No. 6411 of 2023
The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension
of sentence of the appellant under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., against the
judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2023 and order of sentence dated
12.05.2023 passed in S.T. Case No. 09 of 2022 arising out of Kuru P.S.
Case No. 121 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 24 of 2022 by the
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lohardaga whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 313 and 498-A of the I.P.C and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. 10 years along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in
default of payment of fine further directed to undergo S.I. for one year
under Section 313 I.P.C; R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default thereof further directed to undergo S.I. for 6 months under
Section 498-A I.P.C.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is case
where the F.I.R was instituted after a lapse of 9 months and the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges said to be
available for convicting the appellant under the aforesaid sections of 313
and 498-A of the I.P.C, as would be evident from the testimony of the
doctor P.W.7, who has specifically stated that at the time of examination
of the victim, he has found no history of violence or injury on the date of
examination. Further, opinion has been given that it was a case of
inevitable abortion to save the life of the victim i.e., wife of the
appellant, who was excessively bleeding.
3. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that the said
abortion took place while the wife of the appellant was in her parental
house.
4. Submission has also been made that the appellant is languishing
in judicial custody for about last 2 years.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case where sentence may be
suspended.
6. While on the other hand, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed to
the prayer for bail by submitting that it is incorrect on the part of the
appellant to contend that prosecution has miserably failed to establish
the charge for conviction under Section 313 and 498A of the I.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted by citing the
testimony of the witness, who according to him, has consistently
supported the prosecution version.
8. This Court, while hearing the matter on 13.09.2023 has impleaded
the victim i.e., wife of the appellant as respondent no.2.
9. The respondent no.2 has appeared pursuant to the said order
through her counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar, who has also vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail.
10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties; gone across the
impugned judgment including the findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court; the testimony of the witnesses as is available on LCR along with
other documents.
11. Although, it is case under Section 313 and 498A of the I.P.C as
also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, appellant
has been convicted for the offence punishable 313 and 498A of the I.P.C
12. We have, on examination of the testimonies of the witnesses,
found that omnibus and vague allegations regarding physical/mental
torture has been deposed by the witnesses.
13. So far as implication under Section 313 Cr.P.C is concerned, we,
in order to test the veracity of the prosecution version has proceeded to
examine the testimony of the doctor P.W.7, who has given his opinion
that victim had not disclosed any history of violence and injury on the
day of her examination. Further, opinion has been given that seeing the
serious condition of the patient due to heavy bleeding and to save her
life, he treated her for inevitable abortion.
14. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid testimony of P.W.7,
prima facie is of the view that the ingredient to attract the offence under
Section 313 I.P.C. herein is not found in corroboration with the
testimony of the witnesses and the medical evidence adduced by the
doctor P.W.7.
15. Further, appellant is languishing in the judicial custody for about 2
year.
16. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts, is of the view that it is
a fit case where sentence is to be suspended.
17. Accordingly, the appellant, above named, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Lohardaga in connection with S.T. Case No. 09 of 2022 arising out of
Kuru P.S. Case No. 121 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 24 of
2022.
18. Consequently, I.A. No. 6411 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of.
19. However, any observation made herein above will not prejudice
the case of the parties, since the appeal is pending for its consideration
under the heading for hearing.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
