Anuj Kumar @ Chhotu vs State Of Jharkhand

I.A. No. 5481 of 2019

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, State and the informant on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through instant interlocutory

application.

This appellant stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34, 304(B)/34 and 498A/34 of the I.P.C, while the co-convict Rajendra

Prasad was convicted only under Section 498A /34 of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2016 rendered in Sessions Trial

No.251 of 2016 by the court of learned Judicial Commissioner â€"XVII cum FTC (CAW), Ranchi and has been sentenced to undergo R.I for life with

a fine of Rs.50,000/- and a default sentence u/s 302 / 304B of the I.P.C and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-

and a default sentence u/s 498A of the I.P.C. by the impugned order of sentence dated 17.12.2016. The co-convict Rajendra Prasad was sentenced

to undergo R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence u/s 498A of the I.P.C by the impugned order of sentence dated

09.12.2016 i.e., the date of impugned judgment of conviction.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment suffers from legal flaws as conviction has been recorded both under

Section 302 and 304B of the I.P.C, though ingredients to prove both of them are different. He has further submitted that appellant and the deceased

had filed a matrimonial suit for divorce through mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Appellant in his statement under

Section 313 Cr.P.C has also stated that the victim was staying at her paternal house since filing of the suit for divorce through mutual consent in

December, 2015. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C do not stand established upon the weight of the prosecution evidence

as material particulars in relation to the demand and date of demand of dowry has not been specifically stated by the related witnesses who are

Punam Kunwar- mother of the deceased (P.W.1), Suraj Kumar-brother of the deceased (P.W.3) informant and Shankar Prasad-brother-in-law of the

deceased (P.W.2). The most important ingredient of the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C has not been proved i.e., torture soon before her

death at the hands of the appellant by the relatives of the deceased from the matrimonial side. Death has occurred due to asphyxia as a result of

hanging as per Dr. Ajay Bhengra (P.W.8) who has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and proved the same marked as

Ext. 2. The inquest report was prepared in RIMS, Ranchi. In this case Somdutta (P.W.7), who is the cousin of the father of the appellant has been

instrumental in false implication of the appellant and his father because of a pre-existing dispute relating to landed property for which a partition suit is

pending between them. Apart from Somdutta (P.W.7), who is interested witness and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.4), who has been set up, no independent

witness has supported the case of the prosecution as regard the essential ingredients of the offence. Appellant is in custody since 04.02.2016 i.e., next

date of the incidence. As such, he may be enlarged on bail by granting him privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal.

Learned counsel for the State and the Informant, both have strongly opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that marriage of the deceased with

the appellant took place on 19.05.2013. Death has occurred in unnatural circumstances on 03.02.2016 in the matrimonial house. The Investigating

Officer Awdhesh Kumar (P.W.9) has not found any instance of hanging though the articles in the room where the occurrence happened were very

disturbed. It is submitted that the photographs of the deceased and the room where she died has also been exhibited during trial, which shows scuffle

before the death. The CCTV footage which has been adduced as material exhibits and the statement of Rajesh Kumar (P.W.4) and Somdutta

(P.W.7), both show assault by the appellant on the deceased on the passage to their house on the same day. Ingredients of the offence of dowry

death have been proved by the related witnesses who are Punam Kunwar- mother of the deceased (P.W.1), Suraj Kumar-brother of the deceased

(P.W.3) informant and Shankar Prasad-brother-in-law of the deceased (P.W.2). As such, the ingredients of the offence have been duly proved by the

prosecution. Therefore, appellant should not be enlarged on bail as he has remained in custody for 3 years 5 months only against the sentence of life

imprisonment.

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the State and the informant. We have also taken note of the facts and

circumstances including the relevant material evidence relied upon by learned counsel for the rival parties from the lower court records. On perusal of

the record and on consideration of the aforesaid materials, it is apparent that the death has occurred in the matrimonial house of the deceased within 7

years of the marriage in an unnatural circumstances. Considering the evidence of the related witnesses who are Punam Kunwar- mother of the

deceased (P.W.1), Suraj Kumar-brother of the deceased (P.W.3) informant and Shankar Prasad-brother-in-law of the deceased (P.W.2) as also the

material exhibits, the medical evidence of Dr. Ajay Bhengra (P.W.8) and the deposition of the Investigating Officer Awadhesh Kumar (P.W.9), we

do not feel inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail by granting him privilege of suspension of sentence at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer made in

instant interlocutory application is rejected.

I.A. No.5481of 2019 also stands dismissed.