Smt. Sumitra Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5435 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Smt. Sumitra Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 November, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
               Bail Application No. 01 of 2025
                              In
               Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2021

Smt. Sumitra Devi                                     ......Appellant
                               Versus


State of Uttarakhand                                  ....Respondent

Present:
            Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
            Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.


Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order

dated 10/15.09.2021, passed in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2019, State

Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi and another, by the court of District and

Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, Camp Kotdwar. By it, the appellant

has been acquitted of the charge under Section 120B IPC. The

appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read

with 34 and 201 IPC. She seeks bail in this appeal.

2. Heard.

3. This is an admitted appeal.

4. List in due course for final hearing.

Heard on Bail Application No. 01 of 2025

5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dead

body of the deceased Satendra Singh Negi was found on 14.01.2019

near a road. His son-in-law PW1 Anil Rawat lodged a report at Police

Station.

6. According to the prosecution case, the appellant, who is

wife of the deceased, had quite often quarrel with the deceased,

therefore, she along with her son Mohan Singh Rawat had killed the

deceased. The neighbours had heard that on 11.01.2019, there was a

fight in the house of the deceased. Thereafter, the mobile phone of the

appellant was switched off. They were not traceable. On 14.01.2019,

the dead body was recovered.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case

based on circumstantial evidence, but, the circumstances are not such

which may draw only inference that it is the appellant and the

appellant only, who has killed the deceased. He would submit that

there is no evidence to that effect.

8. Learned State counsel submits that witnesses have stated

that the deceased and the appellant, both husband and wife, had quite

frequent quarrels as the deceased would come to his home at drunken

state. On 11.01.2019, in the night also, people have heard a fight in

the house of the deceased and subsequently, his dead body was found.

9. It is a stage of bail post conviction. The appellant has no

privilege of presumption of innocence because he is a convict.

Admittedly, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The strong

circumstance that is being relied by the prosecution is that on

11.01.2019, there was a fight in the house of the appellant and

thereafter deceased was not seen by anyone and the appellant was also

not in her house and her mobile phone was switched off. Can it be said

a clinching evidence, which may draw only one inference that it is the

appellant and appellant alone, who has killed the deceased? Perhaps, it

will find deliberation during appeal.

10. Having considered, this Court is of the view it is a case in

which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the

appellant be enlarged on bail.

11. The bail application is allowed.

12. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the

pendency of the appeal.

13. The appellant be released on bail, during the pendency of

the appeal, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two

reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

court concerned.

(Alok Mahra, J.)                      (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

                          11.11.2025
Ujjwal