Sumia Devi @ Suma Devi @ Sumitra Devi and Gokul Mahto vs The State of Jharkhand

1 The present interlocutory application has been preferred u/s 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded to the present applicant No. 2 and others by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad on 6th June, 2006 in Sessions Trial Case No. 577 of 2004 for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2 Having heard both sides and looking to the evidence on record, there is prima-facie case against the present applicants. Counsel for the applicants argued out the case at much length, but as the criminal appeal is pending we are not inclined to analyze the evidence on record, rather suffice it is to say that looking to the deposition of prosecution witnesses, especially P.W. 2 and 6, to be read with the deposition of P.W. 1 and 7, there is prima-facie case against the present applicant No. 2, who is original accused No. 2, namely Gokul Mahto. It appears that the date of marriage is 22nd July, 2001 and the incident has taken place on 27th March, 2004. The deceased is the wife of the present applicant Gokul Mahto. There is evidence of demand of dowry. The incident has taken place within seven years of marriage. Moreover, the whole incident has taken place in the house of the present applicant. The wife of the present applicant as well as the seven month old son of the present applicant have been murdered. Demand for dowry has been made on 23rd March, 2004 and number of articles were demanded and it has come on record that if the demand was not met, then she is likely to be murdered and ultimately the deceased was murdered on 27th March, 2004, i.e. just couple of days after 23rd March, 2004. Moreover, looking to the medical evidence also, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial court.

In view of these facts, there is prima facie case against the present applicant-accused Gokul Mahto and also looking to the medical evidence, gravity of offence, the quantum of punishment and the manner in which the applicant-accused is involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial court to the present applicant-accused Gokul Mahto.

There is no substance in the present Interlocutory Application, which is accordingly, dismissed.