Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/217/2019 on 5 March, 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
05.03.2025 IA No. 9465 of 2024 (Second Bail Application)
In
CRLA No. 217 of 2019
H on'ble M a noj Kum a r Tiw a r i, J.
H on'ble Vive k Bha r t i Sha r m a , J.
Mr. Prateek Tripathi, learned Legal Aid Counsel
for the appellant/convict.
2. Mr. K. S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate
General assisted by Mr. J. P. Kandpal, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. This criminal appeal is filed by the
appellant/convict against the judgment and order
dated 14.03.2019 passed by learned District &
Session Judge, Tehri Garhwal in S.T. No. 05 of
2016, whereby the appellant/convict was convicted
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life along with fine of `25,000/-
and in default of fine to further undergo one year
additional imprisonment, appellant/convict was
further convicted under Section 201 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous
imprisonment along with fine of `10,000/- and in
default of fine to further undergo six months
additional imprisonment and appellant/convict was
further convicted under Section 365 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous
imprisonment along with fine of `10,000/- and in
default of fine to further undergo six months
additional imprisonment. All the sentences have
been directed to run concurrently.
4. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the
appellant/convict would submit that the 1st Bail
Application of the appellant/convict was rejected on
14.12.2021 and despite lapse of four years, the
appeal could not be heard and decided; that, as per
the prosecution, the whole conviction is based on the
circumstantial evidence, however, the circumstantial
evidences relied upon are neither conclusively
proved, nor the chain was found complete which
may lead to the only conclusion that the alleged
offence was committed by the appellant/convict
alone and none else; that, there are so many lacunas
in the prosecution story.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit
that the appellant/convict was frustrated for the
reason because his deceased wife used to say him
impotent and the appellant/convict used to say that
the appellant/convict is not the biological father of
the daughter born to the deceased.
6. In reply, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the
appellant/convict would submit that the motive so
stated by the learned State counsel is not proved on
record.
He would further submit that this allegation
could have been proved only by family members of
the deceased, however, the father and the sister of
the deceased, who are examined as prosecution
witnesses in the trial court, did not state these facts
in their testimony and this fact came only in the
evidence of the Investigating Officer.
He would further submit that statement of the
appellant/convict recorded by the Investigating
Officer in custody is not admissible in evidence and,
therefore, cannot be relied upon for conviction.
7. Learned State counsel would fairly concede
that father and the sister of the deceased namely Ami
Chandra Singh Rana as PW1 and Munni Devi as
PW3 respectively did not state in their evidences that
the appellant/convict was frustrated and annoyed by
the allegations of impotency by his deceased wife
and appellant/convict used to doubt that daughter
born to the deceased was not the appellant's
daughter.
He, however, would admit that the first bail
application was rejected on 14.12.2021.
8. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties but without expressing any
opinion about the final merits of the case, the
appellant/convict is admitted to bail on furnishing
bail bond with two sureties in the amount of
₹40,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.
9. Second Bail Application stands allowed.
10. List in due course.
( Vive k Bh ar t i Sh a r m a , J.) ( M a n oj Ku m a r Tiw a r i, J.)
0 5 .0 3 .2 0 2 5
Akash
