Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 460 (JHR)

Lalita Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-02-21

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - I.A. No. 7983 of 2016 . Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the State on the plea of suspension of sentence made through I.A. No. 7983/2016. 2. Both the appellants have been convicted for the charge under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. They have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 3. Appellant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased while the appellant no. 2 is the father-inlaw. As per the prosecution case advanced by the father of the deceased, his son Mansu Manjhi married with the appellant no. 1 in May 2010, had gone to his matrimonial house to celebrate the festival of ''Sohrai'' on 09.01.2011. However, he got information on 13.01.2011 that he (deceased) had fallen in a well in the night and died. On reaching the house of the appellants, he found the dead body lying on a cot covered with a cloth. On uncovering the dead body, injuries were found on his forehead and cheek which were bleeding. There were injuries on the back of the deceased also. Based on these allegations, FIR was lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the FIR read together with the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, do not make out any case of such a strong motive to kill the son of the informant who was the son-in-law of the pellant no. 2 and husband of the appellant no. 1. As per the evidence on record, most probably, the deceased had gone out for urination in the night and mistakenly fell in the well which caused such fatal injuries. According to the defence, accused was suffering from night blindness. Appellants have remained in custody in total for six years, two months and odd by now. During trial, they were in custody for about nine months. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer. He submits that injuries on the body of the deceased found during the postmortem and evidenced through statement of the doctor (PW1), were ante mortem in nature and on the head. During trial, they were in custody for about nine months. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer. He submits that injuries on the body of the deceased found during the postmortem and evidenced through statement of the doctor (PW1), were ante mortem in nature and on the head. As per the prosecution case well established, deceased was in the house of the accused who were his wife and father-in-law and no worthwhile explanation has been furnished by the appellants about the occurrence. Theory of night blindness has also remained unsubstantiated. Therefore, the appellants do not deserve the privilege of suspension of sentence. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material evidence relied upon by them on the prayer for suspension of sentence. Appellant no. 2 being the father-in-law of the deceased, could not offer any explanation for the death, though the deceased had gone to his house during the festival of '' Sohrai''. There are ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased also which has caused death due to violent impact of hard and blunt object or impact of hard surface. Death is not reported to have been caused due to asphyxia due to drowning. However, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the appellant no. 1/wife used to frequently ran away from her matrimonial house to her father''s house. No more evidence of previous violent behavior of the appellant no. 1 have come in evidence. 7. Considered in totality. Though, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant no. 1 being a lady on bail who has remained in custody for more than six years and two months by now, but do find any substance in the prayer of the appellant no. 2 for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, prayer for suspension of sentence of appellant no. 2 is rejected. Let the appellant no. 1 - Lalita Devi be released on bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with S.T. No. 199/2011. I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.