Jharkhand High Court
Laxmi Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1549 of 2024
-------
Laxmi Kumari, aged about 25 years, W/o - Late Binod
Hembrom, R/o - Village - School Balidih Shanti Nagar, P.O. &
P.S.- Balidih, District - Bokaro, Jharkhand.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
-------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-------
For the Appellant : Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
-------
Order No.06/Dated- 19.03.2025
I.A. No.1611 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 29.08.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro in connection with
Sessions Trial Case No.259 of 2023, arising out of Balidih P.S. Case No.74
of 2023 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for
the offence under Section 120(B) read with Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one year.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case
where the appellant has falsely been implicated and without
appreciating the fact that even in absence of any cogent evidence said to
be there for proving the charge of commission of offence of murder of
her husband said to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, the
appellant has been convicted.
3. It has been contended that save and except the allegation of illicit
relationship with one co-accused Raushan Bharti, the prosecution has
tried to establish the culpability of commission of crime of murder of her
husband without any effective evidence in this regard.
4. It has also been contended that the another basis of conviction is the
Call Detail Record (C.D.R.) report in order to show that the present
appellant was in talking terms with the Raushan Bharti but according to
the appellant that cannot be a ground for conviction, otherwise the same
will lead to the conviction based upon the conjecture and surmises
which is not applicable in the principle of criminal jurisprudence in the
matter of conviction of a person for commission of alleged crime.
Therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
5. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
6. It has been contended that it is a case of conspiracy committed by the
present appellant for committing murder of her husband since she was
having illicit relationship with one Raushan Bharti. Save and except the
aforesaid, he has tried to impress upon the Court by taking the ground
that the aforesaid fact of illicit relationship would be evident from the
Call Detail Record showing the talking terms of the present appellant
with Raushan Bharti.
7. Learned State counsel, save and except the aforesaid fact, is not in a
position to demonstrate the reason for conviction said to be effective
evidence for the purpose of convicting a person for commission of crime
of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as
also the testimony of witnesses available in the trial court record and the
material exhibits as available therein.
9. It is evident from the material available on record that, as per the
allegation, the appellant was informant but in the course of
investigation, she has been made an accused which is on the basis of the
disclosure made by one Raushan Bharti in his confessional statement. As
per the prosecution version, based upon the confessional statement of
Raushan Bharti, co-accused, the illicit relationship of the present
appellant has been shown to be there with Raushan Bharti. The evidence
of Call Detail Records is there. Although, the compliance of Section 65(B)
of Evidence Act has been said to be there, but the question herein is that
whether on the basis of the Call Detail Record or having illicit
relationship, can a person be implicated for commission of homicide
attracting the ingredients of Section 300 of the I.P.C. for the purpose of
punishing under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
10. What has been argued on behalf of learned State counsel, if it will be
accepted then it would mean that the conviction is based upon the
inference which is not applicable so far as the principle of convicting a
person for snatching a personal liberty, reason being that, in a criminal
jurisprudence, the evidence is said to be proved beyond all reasonable
doubt and only on the basis of such type of evidence, the conviction is
there, but we have not found such evidence after going through the
entire record.
11. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that it is a fit case
for suspension of sentence.
12. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.
1611 of 2025 stands allowed.
13. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be
released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Bokaro in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.259 of 2023,
arising out of Balidih P.S. Case No.74 of 2023.
14. 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.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin-Sunil
