Jharkhand High Court
Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 February, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal(DB) No.1019 of 2023
1. Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Singh
2. Bimla Devi ... Appellants
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
WITH
Cr. Appeal(DB) No.1129 of 2023
Kunal Kumar @ Kunal Singh ... Appellant
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the Res.-State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.
: Mr. V. S. Sahay, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. T. N. Verma, Advocate
: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate
---
Order No.08/Dated: 01.02.2024
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel
for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant on I.A. No. 8630
of 2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1019 of 2023 filed on behalf of the
appellants for suspension of sentence during the pendency of this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the
postmortem report, ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased
which indicates that it was a case of hanging. He has also pointed out
there was no external injury found on the body of the deceased and the
doctor who has conducted postmortem has stated that there was no sign or
evidence of any struggle. He has further submitted that P.W.1, P.W.2 and
P.W.3 are all close relatives and their evidence are basically in the nature
of hearsay with regard to demand of dowry. He has submitted that the
mother of the deceased has not been examined and the elder brother of the
husband of the deceased was also not put on trial.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has in particular submitted
that the death has occurred in the quarter of the husband of the deceased,
but the husband was not residing there. He has also submitted that three
defence witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case, rather
they have said that the appellants were not residing in the quarter, but the
learned court below in its judgment has not considered this aspect and
totally ignored it.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has then taken us to the
evidence of the I.O. and pointed out that no neighbour has stated about
demand of dowry prior to the death of the deceased and only at the time of
marriage Rs.6 lakhs was transferred to the side of the husband, which is
common and natural. He has further submitted that the information
regarding the occurrence was given by the husband of the deceased
himself which would indicate the lack of intention on the part of
appellants to commit any such notorious crime against the victim or her
family. He has further submitted that the husband Kunal Kumar @ Kunal
Singh has himself admitted the deceased in the hospital. He has further
submitted that as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, no
violence had taken place at Rajouli, Bihar which is her native place and
no panchayti was held. The I.O. in his deposition at paragraph 46 to 48,
has stated about inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1,
P.W.2 and P.W.3. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that based of the
aforesaid circumstances, appellants may be allowed the privilege of
suspension of sentence.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant on the other hand have
submitted that it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
that demand of dowry was made and due to non-fulfillment thereof, she
was subjected to torture, which ultimately led to her death. While
referring to the statement of P.W.-2, he has submitted that P.W.2 in
paragraph-2 has deposed that dowry in the form of cash, jewellery and
other articles were given at the time of marriage. He has further referred to
the evidence of P.W-3 wherein he has stated at paragraph-6 that her In-
laws had made demands in front of him and the victim was crying.
Further, in paragraph-14, P.W.3 had gone to Kunal Kumar Singh's house
then the victim had complained about demands. Further, from the
evidence of P.W.4, who is the father of the deceased, it would tranpire that
harassment was made to the deceased due to non-fulfillment of the
demand of dowry. In paragraph-2 he has deposed that at the time of
marriage, amount of cash and other articles were given and after ten days
of marriage, in-laws started making demands of cash as well as other
articles. Being annoyed with this demand, the girl had stated that her
father is humble and poor person and will not be able to meet their
demands. In paragraph-5, this witness has mentioned about demands
made by the in-laws.
6. Learned counsel for the Informant while referring to the
evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and particularly P.W.4, submitted that the
deceased was suffering mental agony due to this demand made by the in-
laws of the deceased and due to non-fulfillment of the demand, she was
subjected to torture which ultimately led to her death. Based on these
submissions, it is submitted that the appellants do not deserve the
privilege of suspension of sentence.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the lower court records and in the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are not inclined to release the appellants on bail. Accordingly,
their prayer for suspension of sentence stands rejected.
8. I.A. No. 8630 of 2023 stands rejected.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Ranjeet-Jay/-
