Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Das @ Prakash Ravidas vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 360 of 2023
------
Prakash Das @ Prakash Ravidas .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. S. K. Murtty, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl.P.P
------
Order No. 03 Dated- 30.10.2023
I.A. (Cr.) No. 5151 of 2023
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the State on the interlocutory application filed by the appellant for
the suspension of sentence during the pendency of this appeal.
The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 01.05.2023 and the order of sentence dated 06.05.2023,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in Sessions
Trial No. 377 of 2021 arising out of Tisri P. S. Case No. 69 of 2019,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years
with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to
undergo further imprisonment for six months. He is further sentenced
to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under
Section 498A IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, he is to undergo further imprisonment for three months, both
sentences shall run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the FIR has
submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the appellant. It is
further submitted that rather the demand for money was alleged in the
FIR has been made by the sister and her husband of the appellant. It is
further submitted that as many as fourteen witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that P.W. - 1 to
P.W. - 5 have been declared hostile and P.W. - 6 has not supported the
prosecution case. It is further submitted that P.W. - 8 is the Doctor who
has deposed that the cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging and
suspected poisoning but there has been no report concerning the
viscera. It is further submitted that P.W. - 10 who is the I.O. of the case
has stated that the persons who can be considered the main witnesses
i.e. the mother and father of the deceased who have been examined as
P.W. - 7 and P.W. - 9 respectively in their examination-in-chief have
stated that the demand of Rs. 8,000/- was made by Sagar Ravidas and
his wife Dulari Devi and not by the present appellant. Thereafter, he has
pointed out that the deceased had lost her mental balance and was
moving around with knife and thereafter the parents of the deceased
had come on 09th November and had seen her daughter in the hospital
lying dead with the black marks on her neck and blood and foam were
oozing from her mouth of the deceased. He has thereafter referred to
the evidence of P. W. - 9 who is the mother of the deceased and has
pointed out that the demand of Rs. 8,000/- was made by Sagar Ravidas
and his wife Dulari Devi. Once again, counsel has submitted that the
name of the appellant has not been mentioned regarding the demand. It
is also stated that after marriage, the deceased and the husband of the
deceased used to be quite happy. He has also pointed out from
paragraph - 11 of the cross-examination that the demand was made in a
moment of joke and therefore, the counsel said that it should not be
considered seriously. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that the appellant is in custody for two years and six months
and therefore his prayer for suspension of sentence may be considered.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of
the appellant and while referring the evidence of P.W. - 9 Munni Devi
who is the mother of the deceased and has stated that in her cross-
examination, she has stated that though the accused used to work in
Jammu and Kashmir but he did not send any money for the expenses to
the deceased. This shows that matrimonial cruelty was being committed
by the accused upon the deceased. Hence, the appellant should not be
granted bail.
Having gone through the records of the case, considering the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, also
considering the period of custody already spent by the appellant and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant, named above, is
ordered to be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on
executing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand
Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned District and Additional Sessions Judge - II, Giridih in Sessions
Trial No. 377 of 2021 arising out of Tisri P.S. Case No. 69 of 2019, subject
to the condition that the appellant shall submit self-attested photocopy
of his Aadhar Card and mobile number before the learned court below
which he will always keep active and will not change it during
pendency of the case without prior permission of the Court.
Accordingly, I.A.(Cr.) No. 5151 of 2023 stands disposed of.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Umesh/-
