Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 805 (JHR)

Sabina Praveen v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-15

P.P.BHATT, VIRENDER SINGH

body2015
ORDER Virender Singh,C. J. 1. Heard learnd counsel for both the sides. 2. In all, there are two accused, namely, Satyanarayan Sahu @ Satya and Sabina Praveen, who stand convicted for the charge of section 302 I.P.C read with section 120B I.P.C. Satyanarayan Sahu @ Satya has filed a separate appeal bearing Cr. Appeal(DB) No. 723/2014, whereas Sabina Praveen has filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 719/2014. 3. JC to Mr.Nilesh Kumar, appearing for the appellant, Satyanarayan Sahu @ Satya in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 723/2014, seeks time stating that the arguing counsel is not available today. Adjourned and list again on 23.07.2015. 4. Mr.Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sabina Praveen in Cr.Appeal(DB) No. 719/2014, has, however, assisted the Court and taken us through the impugned judgment. Some material evidence has also been read over to us, particularly the statement of Investigating Officer, who has categorically stated that when he visited the spot, he found the door of the room where the alleged occurrence had taken place damaged badly. 5. Admittedly, appellant, Sabina Praveen, stands convicted with the aid of section 120B I.P.C. According to Mr.Tiwary, there appears to be no evidence, much less clinching evidence worth the name to connect Sabina Praveen with the commission of the main offence. He contended that if one minutely looks at the case of the prosecution, it appears that Sabina Praveen was carrying on with Satyanarayan Sahu @ Satya prior to her marriage, which took place about 18-20 days prior to the occurrence and immediately after solemnization of the marriage, when she was noticed perturbed, she frankly told her in-laws that in fact, she was in love with Satyanarayan Sahu @ Satya. Mr.Tiwary wants to develop that it appears that the marriage of Sabina Praveen solemnized with the deceased (Afroz Khan) was against her wish and certainly against the wish of Satyanarayan Sahu @ Satya also, who might have taken it to his head, reached the house of the deceased, damaged the door of the room where the couple was sleeping and released shot from his firearm (pistol). 6. 6. Learned counsel submitted that it is quite possible that in this eventuality the appellant Sabina Praveen did not receive any injury and that non-receipt of injury by her, on the other hand, has been taken to be one of the grounds against her by the learned trial court so as to book her with the aid of section 120B I.P.C. 7. Mr.Tiwary further contended that another circumstance, which is taken very seriously against the appellant Sabina Praveen, is that she had stated before her in-laws that she was in love with Satyanarayan Sahu @ Satya, whereas this fact, in fact, is mentioned in the F.I.R itself lodged by the father of the deceased. This circumstance rather should go in favour of the appellant Sabina Praveen and not against her as observed by the learned trial court. 8. Another fact, which tilts in favour of the appellant is that during the trial also, she was on bail and never misused the concession of bail. She is stated to be in custody since the date of suffering concviction by the impugned judgment. 9. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Tiwary prays for suspension of the substantive sentence of the appellant during the pendency of the instant appeal, which is opposed by Mr.Pankaj Kumar, learned A.P.P. 10. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either side at the relevant stage of hearing the appeal, further incarceration of the appellant Sabina Praveen appears to be unjustified. She deserves to be released on bail by suspending her substantive sentence. Ordered accordingly. 11. Let the appellant, Sabina Praveen, be released on bail, during the pendency of the instant appeal, on her furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Commissioner – IV, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.490/2011.