Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/85/2020 on 7 August, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLA No. 85 of 2020
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
(1) Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal,
learned counsel for the appellant.
(2) Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
(3) Mr. Manav Sharma, learned counsel
for the complainant.
(4) This appeal is filed under Section
374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and
order dated 21.12.2019 rendered by
learned Sessions Judge, District Udham
Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 217 of
2017, whereby appellant has been
convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of
I.P.C. He has been directed to undergo
imprisonment for life under Section 302
I.P.C. with fine of ₹10,000/- and, in
default of payment of fine, he was
sentenced to undergo further one year
rigorous imprisonment; he has also been
sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years under
Section 201 I.P.C. with fine of ₹5,000/-
and, in default of payment of fine, he
was sentenced to undergo further three
months rigorous imprisonment. It was
directed that all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
(5) Heard learned counsel for the
parties on the bail application (IA No.
1681 of 2023) moved on behalf of
appellant no. 1 - Suresh Kumar and
perused the record.
(6) According to prosecution story, wife
of appellant no. 1 - Suresh Kumar was
found murdered inside the house on
17.05.2017.
(7) Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for appellant submits
that at the relevant point of time,
appellant was not there and when he got
information, he immediately reached to
his house at around 02:00 pm. She
further submits that it was a blind
murder and prosecution case is based on
circumstantial evidence. She further
submits that prosecution has failed to
complete the chain of circumstances,
and more so, no motive could have been
attached to the appellant for committing
the murder of his wife. It is also
submitted that co-accused (appellant no.
2 - Ajeet) has already been released on
bail and against whom also there were
same evidence.
(8) Per contra, Mr. Manav Sharma,
learned counsel for complainant
submitted that there was a strong
motive for committing the murder as,
according to him, there was a life
insurance policy of ₹50 lakhs of the
deceased, due to which he committed
the crime.
(9) However, according to learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant, there is
no evidence on record regarding
Insurance Policy of ₹50 lakhs. Rather it
was found on record that the insurance
policy of ₹50 lakhs was of appellant no.
1 - Suresh Kumar and deceased had an
insurance cover of ₹1 lakh only.
(9) Learned State Counsel submitted
that there was circumstance of last seen.
According to him, bloodstained cloths
and the weapon (Patal - sharp edged
weapon) were recovered on the pointing
out of the appellant - Suresh Kumar.
(10) We have considered the arguments
of the parties and without going into the
merits of the case, we feel that appellant
is entitled to be released on bail.
(11) Accordingly, Bail Application (IA No.
1681 of 2023) is allowed. Let the
appellant no. 1 - Suresh Kumar be
released on bail during the pendency of
this appeal on his executing a personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties
each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
07.08.2023
Aswal
