Jharkhand High Court
Jit Lal Manjhi vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 February, 2011
Author: Sushil Harkauli
Bench: Sushil Harkauli, R.R.Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
Cr.Appeal(D.B.)No.1082 of 2010
Jit Lal Manjhi . . . . . .Appellant.
Versus
State of Jharkhand . . . . Opp. party.
-----
Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Harkauli.
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.R.Prasad.
-----
For the Appellant : M/s A.K.Sahani & Neelanjan Chatterjee
For the Opp. party : A.P.P.
-----
4/01.02.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State.
We have examined the fact that the co-accused Manshu Manjhi and Ramlal Manjhi have been granted bail in their Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2009. The said co-accused are father-in-law and brother-in-law of the present appellant. The appellant is husband and has been convicted under section 304 B/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bail order of the said co-accused does not contain any reason and therefore no useful guideline can be drawn from the said bail order.
However, we find in this case that the victim lady aged about 22 years was married on 12.3.2005 to the present appellant. The appellant is a resident of Bokaro. On 10.04.2006, a Hero Honda Passion motorcycle was purchased, which is in the use of the appellant. It is registered in the appellant's name. The said motorcycle has not been purchased from Bokaro rather it has been surprisingly purchased from Durga Auto Centre at Dhanbad. There is no specific evidence whether any dealer of Hero Honda Motorcycle is available at Bokaro and why the motorcycle, has been purchased from Dhanbad yet it is common knowledge that motor-cycle dealers of Hero Honda are available even in small places, and Bokaro is not a small town. This would, prima facie indicate that the in-laws of the appellant were continuously giving expensive items to the appellant, even after one year of the marriage. In these circumstances, the allegation of harassment and torture for dowry finds prima facie corroboration. The lady died in the night between 5 and 6 August, 2006. The cause of death is cutting of neck by sharp-edged weapon. Although her body was put on the railway track and found from there, but the nature of injury does not indicate it to be case of railway accident. Thus the theory of suicide can be safely ruled out. Normally, a person does not commit suicide by cutting one's neck in the manner as has been mentioned in the postmortem report.
In any case, if the a lady dies an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and there is prima facie evidence showing dowry harassment then the burden lies upon the accused. After going through the matter, we do not find that the burden has been discharged.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that it is a fit case for release of the appellant on bail during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected. However, the hearing of the appeal will be expedited.
( Sushil Harkauli, J.) ( R.R.Prasad, J.
Raman/3cps 2