Jitendra Kapardar @ Jitendar Kapardar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 4719 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Jitendra Kapardar @ Jitendar Kapardar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2024

Author: Subhash Chand

Bench: Ananda Sen, Subhash Chand

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.354 of 2022
                                           -----
                 Jitendra Kapardar @ Jitendar Kapardar, son of Durga Kapardar,
                 resident of Village Dhadhakiya, P.O. & P.S. Kasmar, District
                 Bokaro, Jharkhand.
                                                                ... ... Appellant.
                                             Versus
                 The State of Jharkhand.                     ... ... Respondent.
                                               ------

                       CORAM        : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

: SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J.

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate.

For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.

------

10/ 01.05.2024 I.A. No.8496 of 2022 This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the appellant

praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during

pendency of this appeal.

2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences

under Sections 302, 498(A), 201 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with S.T. Case No.167 of 2018. He

has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to

pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 of the IPC and other

sentences.

3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for

the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence

and the Trial Court Records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant tried

to save his wife from burning, as a result of which he also sustained

injury which is apparent from the fact that he along with his wife was

also found in burnt condition.

5. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the

State availed and opposed.

6. After going through the impugned judgment and evidence, we

find that the Doctor has given a specific opinion that the deceased was

first murdered and thereafter was put on fire. The ligature mark was also

found and she was pregnant of three months. The Police also found the

container of kerosene oil and smell of kerosene oil was there on the

body which the Doctor also felt.

7. Considering the aforesaid evidence, we are not inclined to

release the appellant on bail.

8. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. It will be open for the appellant to file an application for early

hearing of the appeal.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(SUBHASH CHAND, J.)

Prashant/Cp-03.