AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 400 wordsI.A. Cr. No. 341 of 2011
Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Add). Public Prosecutor on suspension of sentence, during pendency of the appeal.
The Appellant was charged for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been convicted vide judgment dated 28th March, 2006 and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with other sentences. The incident occurred on 24th May, 2002 and since then the Appellant is lying behind the bars. The Appellant has served about nine years of sentence.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no evidence on the basis of which the Appellant could have been connected with the crime. It is submitted that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution were the witnesses of the incident which occurred eight days prior to the unfortunate day. It is also submitted that only it has been alleged that one stick was recovered from the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that the marriage of the Appellant and deceased took place about 25 years ago and it is a prosecution''s own case that the Appellant used to beat his wife and that was a regular feature in their life.
It is also submitted that the Appellant could not have been sentenced on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Appellant is the husband of the deceased and there is evidence which clearly indicates that the Appellant has inflicted injury and there is no explanation regarding the death of his wife in his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and the medical evidence clearly demonstrates the cause of death due to head injury, which was anti-mortem in nature.
We also perused the evidence on record and without going on the merit of the case, we consider the period of sentence undergone by the Appellant and accordingly, the sentence is suspended, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand), with two sureties each of Rs. 10,000/-,(Ten thousand) one of the sureties should have immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and another should be the close relative of Appellant, to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. II East Singhbhum in ST. No. 343 of 2002.
The Interlocutory Application No. 341 of 2011 is accordingly, disposed of.