Patna High Court - Orders
Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 6 September, 2018
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar, Arvind Srivastava
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.393 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2016 Thana- SHEOHAR District- Sheohar
======================================================
1. Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh, son of Late Nageshwar Singh
@ Vikau Singh,
2. Asha Devi wife of Sunil Kumar Singh
Both resident of village- Bhoraha, P.S.- Shyampur Bhataha,
District- Sheohar.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR)
8 06-09-2018Heard Sri Ajay Thakur, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashwani Kumar Sinha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The present appeal was admitted on 20-06-2018. While admitting and summoning lower court record, the State was asked to file written objection against the prayer for grant of bail. In compliance with the earlier order, on behalf of the State, a counter affidavit has been filed.
Both appellants, who are father and mother of deceased girl, were held guilty for commission of offence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.393 of 2018(8) dt.06-09-2018 2/5 under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code on an accusation that they conspired with one another accused, who was none else but brother of appellant no. 1, killed their daughter, aged about 16 years, and threw the dead body near the village of a person, who was made accused on an accusation of kidnapping of the said girl.
Sri Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that in the case, there is no ocular evidence to support the prosecution case nor there is any other plausible evidence, which was sufficient for holding the appellants guilty. It has been argued that the case is totally based on the evidence of the investigating officer, who was examined as P.W. 9. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the victim girl was kidnapped, ransom was demanded and thereafter, the appellants did not take any trace of the said girl, however falsely, the investigating officer implicated both the appellants, as if, it was a case of honour killing. Accordingly, it has been prayed for passing order for suspending sentence and granting bail.
Sri Ashwani Kumar Sinha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.393 of 2018(8) dt.06-09-2018 3/5 in the counter affidavit, specifically it has been indicated that during trial from the appellants side, no suggestion was given as to whether the recovered dead body was not dead body of the daughter of the appellants, but this stand has been taken only at the stage of recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'.). He further submits that there are other material, which suggest that it was a case of honour killing.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have cursorily examined the material on record and after going through the judgment impugned, it is evident that during investigation, son of the appellants disclosed certain facts, which were sufficient to draw inference that the appellants were instrumental in killing and disposing of the dead body of their daughter. Besides this, on examination of the evidence, it also appears that deceased had solemnised marriage with one Santosh Kumar Singh, who was made accused in a case of kidnapping of daughter (deceased) of appellants. Thereafter, the daughter of the appellants went to Mujaffarpur. This fact has been corroborated by call Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.393 of 2018(8) dt.06-09-2018 4/5 details. As per call details and tower location, it was clarified that the daughter of the appellants from Patna had arrived at Mujaffarpur on 26-05-2016 and, thereafter, on number of occassions, as per call details, there was telephonic discussion in between the deceased and appellants and last conversation was made on 27-05-2016. After 8:45 AM on 27-05-2016, there is no detail regarding conversation. The CDR was got exhibited. During investigation, son of the appellants, namely, Avinash Kumar had made statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., in which he had disclosed that both the appellants along with his uncle and his sister on a Bolero vehicle in the night of 27-5-2016 had gone somewhere. In the late night at about 2:00 AM, the said Bolero vehicle returned back with his father, mother and uncle and it was informed that his sister had stayed in her Mausi's house (mother-sister's house). Subsequently, dead body was recovered, which was identified and handed over to the family member.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that apparently, there is no perversity in the judgment impugned and, as such, there is no reason Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.393 of 2018(8) dt.06-09-2018 5/5 to pass favourable order.
Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence and granting bail in respect of appellants stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) ( Arvind Srivastava, J.) nawalkrs/-
U T