Jharkhand High Court
Gulshad Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 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. 678 of 2023
Gulshad Ansari, Aged about 25 years, S/o Kalam Ansari, Resident of Village;
Garadih, P.O. & P.S.: Kairo, District: Lohardaga --- --- 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. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Swapan Maji, Advocate
Order No.08 / Dated 15th October 2024
I.A. No. 1953 of 2024
The aforesaid instant interlocutory application has been filed for
suspension of sentence of the appellant in connection with the judgment
of conviction dated 10.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 13.03.2023
passed in S.T. Case No. 64 of 2021 arising out of Kairo P.S. Case No. 45
of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 400 of 2021 by the learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lohardaga whereby and
whereunder, the appellant along with other co-convicts has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges. It
has further been contended that the ingredients of Section 304 B of the
IPC have not at all been found in the testimonies of the witnesses, if it is
taken into consideration in its entirety. It has further been contended that
the deceased was not in talking term with the mother, which establishes
the fact that there was no demand of dowry.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
other witnesses have also not supported the prosecution version and as
such, it is a fit case where sentence is to be suspended.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have jointly submitted that prosecution
has been able to substantiate the charge as would be evident from the
testimony of the father of the deceased namely Ekbal Khan (P.W.7), who
in a specific term has deposed about demand of dowry of 2 lakhs and
immediately thereafter the death took place in the matrimonial house by
consuming Organo Phosphorus Pesticide. The aforesaid fact also finds
corroboration from the FSL report. Learned counsel for the State and the
Informant have submitted that conviction of the appellant by the learned
Trial Court, since, based upon the cogent evidence i.e., the FSL report
and the evidence of doctor, it is not correct on the part of the appellant to
submit that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone
across the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court in the impugned
judgment. This Court has also gone through the testimonies of the
witnesses as also relevant reports including the post mortem report.
6. We are pleased to refer herein that prayer for suspension of
sentence of the appellant was earlier made through I.A. No. 4147 of
2023 and after some arguments same was not pressed. Thereafter, the
prayer made in the instant interlocutory application is for the second
time.
7. We, in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the
parties, have gone through the testimony of P.W.7, father of the
deceased, who has supported the demand of dowry and torture soon
before the death of the deceased, as would be evident from para 1 of his
examination-in-chief which finds corroboration in para 9 of the cross
examination. The death occurred within fore corner of the matrimonial
house. As per the prosecution version the death was due to consumption
of Organo Phosphorus Pesticide, which is highly poisonous substance as
per the report of the FSL, which has been marked as Ext. 1. Same has
further been corroborated by the post mortem report, which has been
marked as Ext. 6. The learned Trial Court has considered the aforesaid
testimony and the documents including the FSL and post mortem report
and on consideration of applicability of section 113 B of the Evidence
Act has found material available to attract section 304 B of the IPC to
convict the appellant.
8. This Court, based upon the aforesaid consideration, is of the view
that appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case for
2 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 678 of 2023
suspension of sentence.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence made through
I.A. No. 1953 of 2024 is rejected.
10. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case of the parties on merit, since the criminal appeal is
pending before this Court.
11. I.A. No. 1953 of 2024 stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
A.Mohanty
3 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 678 of 2023
