Khirodhar Nayak vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the State and the informant on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A.

No.5983/2019.

Sole appellant stands convicted in connection with Sessions Trial No.211/2009 which was tried analogous with Sessions Trial No.166/2010 vide

impugned judgment dated 26th March 2018 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Special Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women),

Bermo at Tenughat for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been

sentenced to undergo 2 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.15,000/- and a default sentence under Section 498A of the I.P.C.; 10 years

rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B of the I.P.C. and 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.8,000/- and a default sentence under

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act vide impugned order of sentence dated 3rd April 2018.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that though death has occurred in unnatural circumstances within 14 months of the marriage, but it

has come from the evidence of Court Witness No.1 Dr. Amar Kumar Srivastava that victim was suffering from epilepsy. Body of the victim was

found near 300 yards from the house near a pond half submerged in the pond, but the post-mortem report (Ext.5) shows that death did not occur by

drowning. However, the Doctor who conducted post-mortem, has not been examined. In this case, FSL report has been adduced as Ext.4 which

shows organo-phosphorous pesticide which perhaps victim might have consumed because of her depressed state of mind due to epilepsy. The defence

has examined three witnesses in which D.W.3 the appellant has categorically stated that he had been taking the victim for treatment to Vellore. In his

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also it has come that there was a Panchayati so that victim was properly treated for her disease. Lastly it has

been submitted that the informant- father of the deceased P.W.4 has turned hostile and stated that there was usual quarrel between the spouses, not

because of any demand of dowry. It is submitted that sole appellant has been convicted for the charge while six other accused persons have been

acquitted. Therefore, appellant should be enlarged on bail as he has served custody for about 2 and ½ years during trial and after his conviction.

Learned counsel for the State as also the informant have opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the death of the victim has occurred in unnatural

circumstances within 14 months of the marriage and FSL report (Ext.4) showed presence of organo-phosphorous pesticide. Prosecution witnesses:

P.W.1 mother, P.W.2 maternal uncle, P.W.3 brother-in-law, P.W.5 villager and neighbour of the informant have supported the case, though the

Doctor who conducted post-mortem, was not examined. It is not disputed that the informant â€" father of the victim has turned hostile. However, it is

submitted that prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant should be refused as he is the husband.

We have considered the submissions of learned senior counsel for the appellant, the State and the informant and taken note of the facts and

circumstances as also the relevant material evidence relied upon by the rival parties from the lower court records.

On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances noted herein above, particularly the fact that father of the victim and informant (P.W.4)

has turned hostile during trial and the victim was also a patient of epilepsy as per the statement of Court Witness No.1 Dr. Amar Kumar Srivastava,

we feel inclined to grant bail to the appellant during pendency of the appeal. Let the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-

(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Special Fast Track Court

(Crime Against Women), Bermo at Tenughat in connection with S.T. Case No.211 of 2009 with the condition that the appellant and his bailors shall

not change their addresses without prior permission of the learned trial court. I.A. No.5983/2019 stands disposed of.