Jharkhand High Court
Phulwa Devi 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 (DB) No.341 of 2024
1. Phulwa Devi, aged about 48 years, w/o Mathura Paswan
2. Mathura Paswan, aged about 51 years, s/o late Ishwar Paswan
Both are resident of village Madangundi, P.O. & P.S. - Chandwara,
District- Koderma ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
-----
th
Order No.7: Dated 15 October, 2024
I.A. No.10651 of 2024
The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of
sentence, during the pendency of this appeal, which has been filed against the
judgment of conviction dated 12.02.2024 and order of sentence dated
13.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderam in
S.T. No.45 of 2023, arising out of Chandwara P.S. Case No.124 of 2014,
whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Sections
304(B)/34 and 489(A)/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 10 years for the offence under Section 304(B) of Indian Penal Code and
also further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years along with fine of
Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code
and in case of default in payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for
06 months and the period undergone in custody by the convicts during trial
shall be set off and all the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants advanced the arguments
by referring to the testimonies of the witnesses that no ingredients either of
1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.341 of 2024
Sections 304(B)/34 or Section 498(A)/34 of IPC are available. It has also
been contended that the husband namely Ranjit Paswan has already been
released on bail after the suspension of sentence vide order dated 10.07.2019
passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2100 of
2017.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further
submitted by referring to the testimony of the doctor that even the cause of
death has not been ascertained, which was the main reason of allowing the
bail of the husband Ranjit Paswan. As such, it is also a case where both the
appellants, who are the mother-in-law and father-in-law, may be directed to
be released on bail after suspension of sentence.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence,
however he is fair enough to submit based upon the post-mortem report and
viscera report that the cause of death has not been ascertained. Even in the
viscera report, no poisonous substance has been found.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties, gone across the
findings recorded by the learned court in the impugned order as also the
testimonies of the witnesses as available in the lower court record including
the post-mortem report and viscera report.
6. The husband namely Ranjit Paswan has already been directed to be
released on bail vide order dated 10.07.2019 by the coordinate bench of this
Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.2100 of 2017 and the basis upon which the
consideration has been taken as mentioned in para-5 of the said order,
wherein the opinion of the Dr. Ram Lakhan Rajak, who has been examined as
PW-7, who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body, marked as
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.341 of 2024
Exhibit-3, Viscera report marked as Exhibit -5 and also the inquest report
marked as Exhibit - 1/1, the coordinate Bench has found the prima-facie case
for suspension of sentence.
7. We based upon the aforesaid consideration as also considering the
testimony of the informant Shankar Paswan who is the father of the deceased,
who at para 18, 19 and 20 of his deposition has specifically deposed that there
was no quarrel or even the Mathura Paswan (father-in-law) has never
assaulted the deceased. On the basis of the consideration of the testimony as
available in the lower courts, it has been found that no specific attributably
said to be committed by these appellants.
8. This Court, considering the fact that the husband Ranjit Paswan has
already been released on bail after suspension of sentence, is of the view that
the present interlocutory application needs to be allowed.
9. In consequence thereof, the appellants, named above, are directed to be
released on bail during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Koderam in S.T. No.45 of 2023, arising out of Chandwara P.S. Case No.124
of 2014, G.R. No.1212 of 2014.
10. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.10651
of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
R.Kumar
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.341 of 2024
