Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1555 (JHR)

Mathura Das v. State of Jharkhand

2015-12-11

P.P.BHATT, VIRENDER SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. In all, three accused namely Mathura Das, his wife Jhania Devi and father Gobardhan Das stand convicted for the charge of Sections 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih dated 20th December, 2014. Aggrieved of the said judgment they have preferred the instant appeal which has already been admitted. All the three accused are now praying for suspension of sentence during pendency of the main appeal. Trial court record has already been received and perused while considering the prayer for suspension of sentence qua all the three accused. 2. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for all the appellants has vehemently contended that the case of the prosecution is stumbling badly as none of the plank of the circumstantial evidence is proved in this case. He stated that if one looks at the evidence led by prosecution during trial, it appears that it is a last seen evidence only on which the prosecution is banking upon and even though the plank of evidence is not proved to the hilt. He, in order to strengthen his case, has read some material evidence also available on trial court record. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as the appellant Gobardhan Das aged 80 years is concerned, perhaps there is no evidence worth the name to connect him even remotely, but for the fact that he happens to be the father of Mathura Das. Learned counsel then submitted that so far as appellant Jhania Devi, who is hardly 40 years of age, is concerned she happens to be the wife of Mathura Das and the only evidence available on trial court record is that her husband and she had approached the deceased to accompany him to attend a Panchayati and thereafter she was also noticed in the company of her husband by one of the PWs. Learned counsel submitted that at the most it can be said to be a last seen evidence against the appellant Jhania Devi which by itself cannot be said to be a conclusive evidence so as to hold her guilty for the charge of Section 302 IPC or 201 IPC. 4. Learned counsel submitted that at the most it can be said to be a last seen evidence against the appellant Jhania Devi which by itself cannot be said to be a conclusive evidence so as to hold her guilty for the charge of Section 302 IPC or 201 IPC. 4. So far as the appellant Mathura Das is concerned, learned counsel submitted that prosecution has made an attempt to show motive in his bosom along with last seen evidence, therefore, his case, on facts, can be said to be somewhat distinguishable. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that all the three appellants were otherwise on bail during trial. 6. Bail is opposed by learned State Counsel. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case at this stage, lest it may prejudice the case of either side at the relevant stage of hearing the main appeal finally, coupled with the fact that the appellant Gobardhan Das is aged 80 years and was on bail and the fact that Jhania Devi was also on bail, these two appellants deserve the concession of suspension of substantive sentence during pendency of the instant appeal whereas appellant Mathura Das, who despite being on bail during trial, does not deserve the said relief. 8. Prayer for suspension of sentence is, thus, allowed qua appellants Jhania Devi and Gobardhan Das, whereas declined qua appellant Mathura Das. 9. Let the appellants-Jhania Devi and Gobardhan Das be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih – convicting Court/successor Court in connection with S.T. No. 464 of 2008. Appeal allowed.