Manoj Kumar Singh @ Guddu Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through I.A. No.5690/2019.

The sole appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. as well as under Section 25(1-B)a/26(1)/27(1) of the Arms Act by the impugned judgment dated 11th January 2018 rendered in Sessions Trial No.618/2015 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII cum FTC (CAW), Ranchi and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2 Lakh and a default sentence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.; further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- and a default sentence under Section 25(1-B)a of the Arms Act; rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and a default sentence under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and a default sentence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act vide impugned order of sentence dated 20th January 2018.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution had initially tried to set-up a case of dowry death as the deceased died within 7 years of marriage but failed to prove any ingredients of offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. as no demand of dowry or torture soon before the death was proved. As a matter of fact, apart from the informant-brother of the victim, P.W.4 and his wife P.W.3, other prosecution witnesses like P.W. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 have not supported the case of the prosecution, rather they have stated that after hearing the gun-shot injury the accused and other persons broke open the window and entered the room to find out that she had shot herself. The medical report (Ext.3) also discloses the indication of self-shot from a very close range. Though accused was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded, but there is no recovery pursuant to the confession. Even P.W.13 who is another brother of the victim, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the mother of the victim has not come forward to support the case. Appellant has been in custody since conviction and in total 2 and ½ years including the period during trial. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal by granting privilege of suspension of sentence.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He submits that victim died in the house of the appellant husband due to fire-arm shot injury from a close range. The fire-arm recovered from the place of occurrence was illegal regarding which there is no answer on the part of the appellant. The evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses that the window was broken after hearing the gun-shot and the appellant also rushed inside to save her and had taken her to the hospital immediately, does not stand corroborated by the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence. There is no evidence of seizure of any broken window or door from the place of occurrence which is a small room having doors of iron make. Certain incriminating articles including the pistol, live bullet and two Khokhas along with one Sandow Ganji with blood stain were recovered from the place of occurrence and the place of occurrence was also found to have been cleaned in order to destroy the evidence. Therefore, complicity of the appellant cannot be ruled out as he is the husband and has failed to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

We have considered the submissions of Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the State and taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the relevant material evidence on record relied upon by the rival parties.

On perusal of the material on record, it appears that victim died due to a gun-shot from a close range and the evidence of Investigating Officer does not show recovery of any broken window/ door from the place of occurrence, rather the weapon of assault, live bullet and two empty Khokhas recovered were illegal in nature regarding which there is no explanation by the appellant-husband. As such, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail during pendency of this appeal at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail made through I.A. No.5690/2019 stands rejected.