Deo Charan Tiwari vs The State of Jharkhand

Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.—This appeal has already been admitted vide order dated 1st April, 2013. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2011 was called for from the trial court so as to appreciate the argument for suspension of sentence. This Court has received records and proceedings of the Sessions Trial. We have perused the same and heard learned counsel for both the sides, at length.

The present appellant is original accused No. 1 in the Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2011. Looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against this appellant. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that looking to the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, there is prima facie case against this appellant. There is demand of dowry. Moreover looking to the fact, it appears that the marriage was solemnized in the month of February/March 2007 and the incident has taken place in the month of June 2010 i.e. within four years of marriage. The deceased was wife of the present appellant, who had sustained burn injuries at the house of the appellant. It appears that theory of accidental death has not been established by the evidences on record, on the contrary, prima facie evidences on record leads to the offence which is a culpable homicide of the deceased. The trial court has punished this appellant for the offence punishable u/s 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Though the incident has taken place in the house, there are no burn injuries upon body of this appellant, as submitted by learned A.P.P., otherwise, if the appellant has tried to save life of the deceased, there were all chances of having burn injuries upon hand of the appellant. Moreover, there are also other evidences on record, which lead to prima facie case against this appellant. Hence, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court. The prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant is, hereby, rejected.