Jharkhand High Court
Upendra Mahto Aged About 40 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 2110 of 2023
------
1. Upendra Mahto aged about 40 years, son of Late Baijnath Mahto.
2. Arvind Mahto aged about 44 years, son of Late Baijnath Mahto.
3. Urmila Devi aged about 37 years, wife of Arbind Mahto.
All residents of village Hutar, P.O. Satbarwa, P.S. Sadar (Satbarwa),
District Palamau, State of Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP
--------
Order No. 08 / Dated: 03rd October, 2024
The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of
appellant No.1-Upendra Mahto under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence/grant of bail
during the pendency of the instant Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 2110 of 2023 in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 63 of 2016 with Sessions Trial No.63A
of 2016 against the judgment of conviction dated 03.10.2023 and order of
sentence dated 07.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V,
Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder the appellant No.1 along
with appellant No.2 and appellant No.3 have convicted under Section
304-B/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant
has falsely been implicated in this case for commission of the offence under
Section 304-B/34 of the IPC.
3. It has been contended that the appellant being the husband has given
full treatment, since the deceased was suffering from mental ailment and to
that effect the medical prescription of the psychiatric have been produced
and marked exhibit on behalf of the defence.
4. The doctor has supported the case of death due to hanging.
5. The appellant has been languishing in judicial custody since
conviction i.e. from 03.10.2023 and during trial he was in custody for 1
year 9 months 23 days and such he was remained in custody for 2 years 9
months 23 days and as such it is a fit case where suspension may be
suspended.
6. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and it has been contended that it is a case where the prosecution has
been able to prove charge beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of
testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 & PW-4. The testimony of all these
witnesses have been found to be corroborated by the Investigating Officer
who has been examined as PW-7. It has further been contended that the
Investigating Office has also found the evidence of commission of offence
on the ground that accused persons told about suicide by hanging but no
mark of hanging was found on the Balli and the said Balli was full of dust
and spider web. Further submission made that the learned trial Court after
taking into consideration the implication of Section 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act has passed the judgment of conviction and hence it is not a
case where sentence is to be suspended.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the
finding recorded by the learned trial Court. We have also gone through the
testimonies of all the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Record, the
documents especially the post-mortem report.
8. We have gone through the testimony of PW-1, namely Shiv Shankar
Mahto-informant of the case and father of the deceased. He has supported
the demand of dowry.
9. PW-2, namely, Munesh Mahto, the sister of the deceased has also
supported the demand of dowry and has also deposed that when she
reached, she has found black mark on her neck. She has also supported the
demand of dowry being made by father-in-law of her sister namely,
Baijnath Mahto, husband Upendra Mahto, Bhaisur- Arvind Mahto and
Gotini- Urmila Devi.
10. PW-3- Belwanti Devi has also supported the version.
11. PW-4- Tetari Devi who has been considered to be an independent
witness has deposed that she has heard the sound of crying of Poonam Devi
but since it was a raining and as such by that time she reached the house of
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 2110 of 2023
the deceased, she was found dead.
12. The Doctor has been examined as PW-5 who has found the ligature
mark about 1 cm wide present over upper part of neck extending from front
of neck from both side of neck and absent over right upper back part of
neck.
13. The Investigating Officer has been examined as PW-7 and he has
deposed that the deceased committed suicide by hanging from Balli but he
has not found any mark of hanging on the Balli and said Balli was full of
dust and spider web.
14. The learned trial Court based upon the testimony of PW-1, PW-2,
PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-7 has considered the implication of Section 113-
B of the Indian Evidence Act and as such passed the impugned judgment of
conviction.
15. This Court has not found from the material available on Lower Court
Record particularly the testimony of the witnesses that there is no question
or even suggestion that the death has not occurred within the four corner of
the matrimonial house, rather, it is an admitted case that the death has
occurred within the four corner of matrimonial house and in such
circumstances, the implication under Section 113-B has been considered by
the learned trial Court which is the basis of the judgment of conviction
based upon the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4.
16. We are of the view, the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie
case for grant of bail and accordingly, I.A. No. 10792 of 2024 filed for
suspension of sentence/grant of bail by the appellant No.1-Upendra Mahto
is hereby rejected and consequently disposed of.
17. 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.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 2110 of 2023
