Sabita Devi And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the appellant no.3 Rama Prasad Mehta @ Rama Mahto and the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through instant interlocutory application.

This appellant no.3- husband along with 4 others namely Sita Ram Mahto, brother-in-law; Shanti Devi, mother-in-law; Sabita Devi, sister-in-law and Duli Mahto, father-in-law stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the I.P.C by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2017 passed in S.T. No.439 of 2008 by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IX cum FTC for rape case, Hazaribag. Appellant no.3 husband Rama Prasad Mehta @ Rama Mehta along with Sita Ram Mehta, brother-in-law (appellant no.2 herein) and Sabita Devi, sister-in-law (appellant no.1 herein) were sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years, while Duli Mahto, father-in-law and Shanti Devi, mother-in-law were awarded sentence to undergo R.I for 7 years by the impugned order of sentence of the same date.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that out of the three appellants herein, appellant no.1 Sabita Devi and appellant no.2 Sita Ram Mehta have earlier been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 18.06.2018. Appellant being the husband has preferred the instant interlocutory application for grant of privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has in support of the prayer taken us through the evidence on record, in particular the informant-father, Mathura Prasad Mahto (P.W.4), Dr. Shiv Prasad Sinha (P.W.6) as also that of Polikar Kujur (P.W.5), Investigating Officer of the case. He further points out that Deena Mahto (P.W.7) and Jago Mahto (P.W.8) have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.7 Deena Mahto has been declared hostile by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer Polikar Kujur (P.W.5) has stated that the deceased was having a complex as the husband - appellant herein was of black complexion. She did not want to go back to her matrimonial house. This witness stated that she was forcibly dropped in her matrimonial house by her parents. The Informant Mathura Prasad Mahto (P.W.4) has alleged demand of dowry in the nature of transfer of land in favour of this appellant but Deena Mahto (P.W.7) and Jago Mahto (P.W.8), who have been named by the informant, did not support that story. It is a case of suicide for factors alien to any cruelty in marriage. The Medical officer, Dr. Shiv Prasad Sinha (P.W.6) has also found no external or internal injury. Death was caused due to consumption of pesticide Sulfas as per the viscera report. Therefore, appellant who has served custody of 11 months during trial and thereafter from the date of his conviction, in total 2 years 5 months be enlarged on bail by granting him privilege of suspension of sentence.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the death has occurred on 12.04.2008 within 2 years of the marriage and allegation of demand of dowry and torture have been proved by the prosecution witness such as Kapur Devi (P.W.3), mother, Mathura Prasad Mahto (P.W.4), father and Ravidas Mahto (P.W.2), cousin brother. In case of dowry death independent witness seldom came to support the case. As per the viscera report and statement of P.W.6 Dr. Shiv Prasad Sinha, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body, death was cause due to consumption of pesticide Sulfas. The statement of the Investigating Officer Polikar Kujur (P.W.5) has come out of the blue, which cannot discredit the statement of other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the appellant no.3 Rama Prasad Mehta @ Rama Mahto, who is the husband should not be enlarged on bail on grant of privilege of suspension of sentence.

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and the State and taken note of the facts and circumstances including the relevant material evidence relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the fact that appellant no.3 is the husband and death has occurred within 2 and ½ years of the marriage in unnatural circumstances and more over appellant has failed to discharge his onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act during trial and has undergone custody for 2 years and 5 months only as against the sentence of 10 years, we are not inclined to enlarge the appellant no.3 Rama Prasad Mehta @ Rama Mahto on bail on grant of privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal at this stage. Accordingly, prayer made in I.A. No. 5790 of 2019 is rejected.

I.A. No.5790 of 2019 also stands dismissed.

Since the mother-in-law Sarita Devi and father-in-law Duli Mahto have preferred Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 2138 of 2017 arising out of the common impugned judgment, same needs to be connected to the present appeal. Accordingly, let Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 2138 of 2017 be tagged with the instant appeal to be heard together.