Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.322 of 2020
------
1. Mahesh Prasad, aged about 32 years Son of Late Laliji Sao.
2. Sakunti Devi aged about 30 years Wife of Mahesh Prasad.
Both resident of Village-Sahpur, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, Dist.-
Hazaribag .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
------
For the Appellant : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Advocate
------
11/Dated: 16.01.2025
I.A.No.1120 of 2024
Prayer
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant no.2, namely, Sakunti Devi under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence dated 31.01.2020, in connection
with S.T. Case No.241 of 2015, arising out of Katkamsandi P.S. Case
No.288 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.4285 of 2013, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Sections 304B & 302/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and in default
of payment of fine, she has further been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for four months. She has also been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for life under Section 304B of the IPC, as also, R.I. for one
year along with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and in default of payment of fine, she has further been
directed to undergo imprisonment for three months.
Prosecution Story
2. The prosecution case is based on the written report of informant
Anil Kumar. The informant has alleged that marriage of his sister Sita
Devi was solemnized with accused Munna Prasad, son of Lalji Sao on
11/07/13 and after the marriage, she was residing in her Sasural in
village Sahpur under P.S. Katkamsandi, where on 04/12/13 his sister
Sita Devi was murdered by her husband Munna Prasad, father-in-law
Lalji Sao, Gotini Sakunti Devi, brother-in-law Mahesh Prasad, mother-
in-law Gaura Devi and sister-In-law (nanad) Anju Kumari.
3. It has been alleged that on receiving the information of death of
Sita Devi, the informant along with his other family members and some
villagers reached at his sister's Sasural in Village Sahpur, where he
found the dead body of his sister lying in a room, but no other
inhabitants of the house were present in the house. The informant
further alleged that his sister was being subjected to cruelty because of
demand of dowry and therefore, he claimed that aggrieved by the non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry, his sister's husband and in-laws killed
his sister Sita Devi and fled away from the house leaving the dead
body abandoned in the house.
4. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution has
examined altogether twelve witnesses in Session Trial no. 241/15. The
learned trial court after appreciation of evidence has found the charges
levelled against the present applicant along with other accused proved
beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the present applicant has
been convicted for the offence under Sections 304B & 302/34 of the
IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly
sentenced as aforesaid.
5. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the
appellant, namely, Sakunti Devi with the prayer for the suspension of
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
Submission of the Learned counsel for the applicant
6. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to
establish the charge beyond all reasonable doubts.
7. It has been submitted that the prosecution witnesses have given
contradictory statements with regard to exact article demand by the
appellant.
8. It has also been submitted that the ingredients of Section 304B
IPC has not been proved by the prosecution.
9. It has further been submitted that taking into consideration the
testimonies of the witnesses, it appears that there is no unanimity
relating to demand of dowry by the accused person from the deceased
or from her family members, therefore, it is not sufficient to establish
the ingredient of Section 304B of the IPC.
10. The present appellant being the sister-in-law of the deceased
has been falsely implicated in the case, since, she is separate in home
and kitchen from the other convict husband of the deceased. In order
to fortify this argument the learned counsel has placed reliance upon
the statement of informant at Para-4 of his cross-examination, where it
is stated that though the husband and the rest accused stay in the
same home but the appellant along with her husband were having
separate kitchen.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
other co-accused/appellant Munna Prasad who is the husband of the
deceased has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated
12.07.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1781 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 313 of 2020, therefore the present appellant deserve to be
enlarged on bail after suspension of sentence during pendency of the
instant appeal.
12. Learned Senior Counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds
has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-State
13. While on the other hand, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned APP
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence.
14. He submits that the marriage took place on 11th July, 2013 and
as per the prosecution evidence, death of the victim took place by
strangulation on 4th December, 2013 i.e., within six months of the
marriage on non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.
15. It has further been submitted that father of the co-convict
husband has stated before the informant that the husband and Gotni,
Sakunti Devi (applicant herein) had killed the victim. It has been
contended that in the deposition of the informant, it has also come that
the father-in-law of the deceased admitted that his son, Munna Prasad,
husband of the deceased and his daughter-in-law, Sakunti Devi were
having illicit relationship.
16. It has further been contended that the post-mortem report of
deceased (Ext.-3) also shows that death was caused by Asphyxia due
to strangulation showing the involvement of more than one person.
17. He submits that earlier the similar prayer of the present
applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence during pendency of the
appeal was rejected three times by the coordinate Bench of this Court
on merits after due consideration of the materials available on record
therefore, no fresh grounds have been made out for grant of bail by
suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
18. It has been contended that it is incorrect on the part of the
appellant to take the ground that none of the prosecution witnesses
has supported the prosecution version, rather, if the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses will be taken into consideration together, then, it
would be evident that the prosecution has been able to prove the
charge beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, it is not a case for
suspension of sentence.
Analysis
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned
judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses along with other
exhibits, as available in the Lower Court Records.
20. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that this is the fourth
attempt of the applicant/appellant namely Sakunti Devi for suspension
of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal by filing the instant
application.
21. It is evident from the record that earlier, the similar prayer of
the present applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence during
pendency of the appeal was rejected three times by the coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2021, 16.09.2022 and
07.11.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1954 of 2021, I.A. No. 3879 of 2022 and
I.A. No. 5852 of 2023 respectively, on merits after due consideration of
the materials available on record. For ready reference the relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid orders is being quoted as under:
Order dated 23.06.2021 passed in I.A. No. 1954 of 2021
"--------- --------- --------- ---------
We have considered the submission of learned counsel for
the parties and taken into note of the relevant materials
relied upon by them from Lower Court Records. It appears
that Lalji Sao, father of appellant no. 1 admitted that his
son and husband of the deceased along with appellant no.
2, Sakunti Devi were having illicit relationship and had
killed the victim. However, there are only general and
omnibus allegation against the appellant no. 1.
Order dated 16.09.2022 passed in I.A. No. 3879 of 2022
--------- --------- --------- ---------
4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel
for the parties, the grounds urged in support of the
renewed prayer for suspension of sentence and the period
of custody also claimed by the appellant No. 2, we do not
find any fresh grounds made out for suspending the
sentence in favour of appellant No. 2, as the prayer has
earlier been rejected on merits after due consideration of
the materials on lower court records and the period of
custody is also about 3 years only.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3879 of 2022 is rejected at this
stage.
Order dated 07.11.2023 passed in I.A. No. I.A. No.5852
of 2023
--------- --------- --------- ---------
7. In our opinion the reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the applicant on the order passed by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A. No. 1781 of 2023 in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 313 of 2020 is completely
misplaced inasmuch as only on the ground that Munna
Prasad has served about 10 years of imprisonment he has
been released on bail. Whereas, the present applicant has
remained in custody for only about 3 years.
8. Having regard to the specific findings recorded by the
Sessions Judge and the observations of PW 12 in the
post-mortem report, we are not inclined to entertain the
present application for suspension of sentence vide I.A.
No. 5852 of 2023 which is accordingly dismissed."
22. It is evident from the aforesaid orders that the Co-ordinate
Bench has taken note of the medical evidence particularly post-mortem
report of the deceased wherein it has been mentioned that "A ligature
mark directed horizontally and encircling the neck completely below the
level of thyroid cartilage brownish in colour and with irregular abrasion
mark present around the ligature mark. Head and neck:- Ecchymosis
present in the subcutaneous tissue in line of the ligature mark."
23. The Co-ordinate Bench has further taken note of the fact that
Lalji Sao, father of convict son (husband of deceased) had admitted
that his son and along with appellant namely Sakunti Devi were having
illicit relationship and had killed the victim.
24. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid orders it is evident that the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while adjudicating the issue of
suspension of sentence of the applicant/appellant has taken in to
consideration the material available on record and had meticulously
examined the evidence and thereafter passed the well merited orders.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
other co-accused/appellant Munna Prasad who is the husband of the
deceased has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated
12.07.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1781 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 313 of 2020, therefore the present appellant deserve to be
enlarged on bail after suspension of sentence during pendency of the
instant appeal.
26. In our opinion the reliance placed by the learned counsel for
the applicant on the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in I.A. No. 1781 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 313 of 2020 is not
tenable reason being that the aforesaid contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant has already been taken note by the Co-
ordinate Bench while rejecting the prayer for the suspension of the
sentence by the appellant which would be evident from the order dated
7th November 2023 passed in I.A. No. 5852 of 2023. The relevant part
of the order dated 7th November 2023 has already been quoted and
referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraph.
27. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion it is evident that no fresh
grounds have been made out by the applicant/appellant for grant of bail
by suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
Further this Court are conscious with the fact that this Court can not act
like the appellate Court for the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
and as we discussed herein above that earlier the prayer of suspension
of sentence has been rejected thrice by the Co-ordinate Bench after
taking in to consideration the material available on record and had
meticulously examined all the evidences available and thereafter
passed the well merited orders.
28. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove this
Court is of the considered view that since, the prayer of suspension of
sentence of the appellant has been rejected thrice by the Co-ordinate
Bench after meticulous examination of all the evidences available on
merit , and further, no new ground is available on record for fresh
consideration, the instant application lacks merit, therefore it is not a fit
case for suspension of sentence.
29. Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.1120 of
2024 stands dismissed.
30. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Rohit/-
