Jharkhand High Court
Sidheshwar Kalundia @ Siddeshwar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 864 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 5337 of 2023
---------
Sidheshwar Kalundia @ Siddeshwar Kalundia ....... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
----------
For the Appellant : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.
-----------
th
08/Dated: 12 October, 2023
I.A. No. 5337 of 2023:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C. for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the
judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2022 and order of sentenced dated
21.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2020
arising out of Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 224 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B
of IPC as also rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed to
undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the
sole appellant has been convicted even though there is no ingredient of
Section 304-B of IPC since there is no allegation of any demand of dowry
said to have been uttered by any of the witnesses.
It has been contended that since the conviction is under Section 304-B of
IPC, as such, the ingredient as stipulated in the aforesaid penal offence is
required to be proved before convicting a person under Section 304-B of
IPC.
The contention has also been made that even accepting the death caused
in the matrimonial house but for the purpose of attracting the ingredient of
Section 304-B of IPC, the illegal demand/torture is to be there but as would
appear from the testimony of witnesses there is no evidence to that effect.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted by referring to
the testimony of P.W.-10 and P.W.-11 wherein they have deposed that the
present marriage was the second marriage of the victim-deceased and the
earlier marriage was solemnized with Vijay Kalundia, as such, there is
every apprehension that the deceased herself has committed suicide.
Further, as per the version of P.W.-10 who happens to be co-villager has
been examined in the capacity of independent witness who has deposed in
the cross-examination that the appellant was not present in his house rather
he was at his sister's house.
Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that it is a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended.
3. While, on the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has
vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. However, he is
not in a position based upon the testimony of the witnesses as also after
going through the judgment passed by the learned trial court about the non-
availability of the material said to attract ingredient of Section 304-B of
IPC since none of the witnesses have uttered a word about the illegal
demand/torture for the purpose of dowry.
4. This Court on consideration of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties and taking into consideration the fact that none of the witnesses
have disclosed about any material of illegal demand or the deceased having
been subjected to torture for the said purpose.
The P.W.-10, who happens to be an independent witness, has disclosed
that on the day of occurrence, the husband of the deceased-victim was not
present in the house rather he had gone to the house of his sister.
5. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, prima facie is
of the view that it is a fit case where the appellant has been able to make out
a case for suspension of sentence.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5337 of 2023 stands allowed.
7. In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-
Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa,
in connection with Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2020 arising out of Manjhari
(Tantnagar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.
224 of 2020.
8. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice
the case of the appellant on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying
pending before this Court.
9. In view thereof, I.A. No. 5337 of 2023 stands disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Saurabh/-
