Jharkhand High Court
Lakhan Kumar Mahto @ Lakhan Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.275 of 2023
-----
Lakhan Kumar Mahto @ Lakhan Mahto, aged about 26 years, s/o late
Puran Mahto, r/o Mouza Chatti, Bariatu, PO & PS-Keredari, District-
Hazaribagh ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellant :Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Pragati Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent :Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
------
th
Order No.07/Dated:24 October, 2024
I.A. No. 865 of 2024
1. This needs to refer herein that on earlier occasion the applicant has
moved before this Court by filing interlocutory application being I.A
No.5404 of 2023 for suspension of sentence, but after arguing at length
the said interlocutory application was not pressed. Thereafter, by way of
present interlocutory application being I.A No.865 of 2024, the applicant
has made his second attempt for making a prayer for suspension of
sentence.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
389(1) of the Cr.PC for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection
with the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2022 and order of sentence
dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Hazaribag in connection with S.T. No.64 of 2021 arising out
of Keredari PS Case No.75 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.01
of 2021 whereby and whereunder, the applicant has been convicted
under Sections 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence under Section 302
of the I.P.C. and in default of payment, further directed to undergo SI for
six months.
3. It has been contended by Mr. P.P.N Roy, the learned senior counsel
assisted by Mrs. Pragati Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant that it is the case where the prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond all reasonable doubt reason being that there is no cogent
evidence to establish the charge against the present applicant. It has been
submitted that merely the applicant is the husband of the deceased and,
as such, applying the principle laid down under section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act, the judgment of conviction has been passed.
4. It has further been submitted that the prosecution has also miserably
failed to establish the prosecution version due to non-examination of the
minor daughter, having aged about 7 years at the time of occurrence,
taken birth from the wedlock of the deceased and the present applicant.
5. Further ground has been taken by referring to testimony of the
daughter who has also not found the commission of crime of murder.
6. The learned senior counsel for the applicant, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case where the present applicant be
released from judicial custody by suspending his sentence.
7. While, on the other hand, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned APP
appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended that the
judgment of conviction is based upon the applicability of section 106 of
the Evidence Act reason being that the applicant who is the husband was
all along in the house and the death took place within the four corner of
the matrimonial house of the deceased and, as such, the prosecution has
come out with the formational fact and, hence, it is the accountability
and onus of the applicant to disprove the said charge, But no such plea
has been taken by the applicant that as would be evident from the
testimony of the witnesses, particularly, the cross-examination part
thereof.
8. It has further been submitted by referring to the statement recorded
under section 313 of the Cr.P.C of the applicant wherein he has admitted
the fact that while the murder was committed, he along with his minor
daughter was at his house where the occurrence took place. Therefore, if
the learned trial Court has applied the principle as laid down under
section 106 of the Evidence Act, it cannot be said that any error has been
committed in passing the judgment of conviction, as such, it is not a case
where the sentence may be suspended.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court as also the testimony of the
witnesses as available in the lower Court records which contains the
exhibits, the statement of the applicant recorded under section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. as also the post-mortem report of the deceased with the opinion
thereof the doctor i.e. PW8.
10. This Court has found that as per the prosecution version the deceased
who was the wife of the applicant was killed while she was in her
matrimonial house. The dead body was found in the "Goshal" which was
inside the house.
11. It is also evident from the testimony of the witnesses that the relation
between the applicant and the deceased was not cordial due to issue of
demand of dowry made by the applicant. PW3, namely, Manoj Mahto,
the brother of the deceased, has supported the prosecution version. The
issue of panchayat for the purpose of settlement of the issue of dowry
demand has also been surfaced.
12. PW8, the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the
deceased, has found that the reason of death was due to asphyxia and
manual strangulation.
13. The applicant while recording his statement under section 313 of the
Cr.P.C has stated that he along with his minor daughter was at his house
where the occurrence took place.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court, is of the view that the
applicant has failed to make out a prima-facie case for suspension of
sentence.
15. Accordingly, I.A. No. 865 of 2024 stands rejected.
16. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since the criminal appeal is lying pending
before this Court for its consideration.
17. In view thereof, I.A. No. 865 of 2024 stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Sudhir
