Jharkhand High Court
Paramila Devi @ Mila Kumari @ Parmila ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 March, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 959 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 10298 of 2024
---------
Paramila Devi @ Mila Kumari @ Parmila Devi, W/o Shatrudhan Kumhar, R/o
Vill. Saktara, PO & PS Jari, Distt. Gumla
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
-----------
09 /Dated: 26 March, 2025
th
I.A. No. 10298 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant,
under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated
21.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gumla in S.T.
No. 256 of 2018 arising out of Jari P.S. Case No. 07 of 2018 corresponding to
G.R. No. 543 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found
guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.25,000/-.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where two
views are possible on the basis of the surrounding facts, since the whole
issues revolves around the apportionment of Rs. 4 Lakh which was to be
disbursed by way of compensation on account of death of the husband of the
appellant. The motive of death has been shown by the prosecution that the
appellant intended to give Rs. 4 Lakhs to her brother, but the deceased was
also demanding the same due to the reason that the said amount of
compensation was to be paid due to the demise of his brother (husband of the
present appellant).
3. It has further been contended that the other claimants are also there if the
prosecution version will be taken into consideration wherein the brother of
the deceased namely, Ledhu Mahto, was also shown to have opened the door
where the dead-body of the deceased was lying. It has further been contended
that there is possibility of commission of crime of murder of the deceased by
the brother-in-law of the present appellant namely, Ledhu Mahto also. Hence,
it is a case where two views are coming forth and as such, the benefit of
doubt be given to the appellant. The appellant has remained in custody for six
years and ten months approximately.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for suspension of sentence, and has submitted that it is the
appellant who has committed the murder of her brother-in-law (Devar). Since
he was demanding the share in the amount of Rs. 4 Lakh and to be done away
with him, the murder has been committed and thereafter by keeping the dead-
body inside, the appellant went to the house of her grandfather. The aforesaid
version is being proved from the testimony of the witnesses. Therefore, it is
not a case of suspension of sentence.
5. We have heard 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 and exhibits as available in the Lower Court
Records.
6. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of
appellant has gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, particularly the
testimony of PW4, from where it is evident that Ledu Mahto, brother of the
deceased, had opened the door. While on the other hand, other witnesses have
deposed that the present appellant was having the key also. There is on direct
eye witness to the occurrence, and the case rests on circumstantial evidence.
Admittedly, the appellant was not found at the residence at that time when the
dead body was recovered inside the house. Plea of defence has been taken of
possibility of two views, since the key of the lock of house was with Ledhu
Mahto, brother-in-law of the appellant, as per the version of PW4, and as
such, this gives a picture of possibility of two views. The appellant has
remained in custody for about six years and ten months.
7. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed.
8. Regard being had to the reasons aforesaid, the appellant, named above, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gumla in S.T. No. 256
of 2018 arising out of Jari P.S. Case No. 07 of 2018 corresponding to G.R.
No. 543 of 2018.
9. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the
case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its
consideration.
10. The instant Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Anit
