Jharkhand High Court
Bhodo Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.694 of 2024
------
Bhodo Rai, Aged about 45 years Son of Late Barasakhi Rai, resident of village Radha Nagar Mostagir Tola, P.O. & P.S.-Pakuria, District Pakur (Jharkhand). .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
------
06/Dated: 18.11.2024 I.A. No.11890 of 2024 Prayer
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 20.01.2024, in connection with S.T. No.72 of 2019, arising out of Pakuria P.S. Case No.65 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The fine amount will be paid to the victim's family as an amount of compensation and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Factual Matrix 1
2. The prosecution case is based on fardbayan of the informant Gajobati Kumari recorded on 22.11.2018 at 08.05 AM at Radha Nagar Mastagir Tola, P.S- Pakuria, district- Pakur alleging inter alia that on the previous night on 21.11.2018 at 12.00 'O' clock in the night her uncle Bhodo Rai came to his house and started abusing her mother, namely, Sadheshwari Devi upon which her mother protested, as a result of which all her brothers and sisters woke up. Then her uncle at knife point threatened her to leave the house or else they will be killed. Thereupon they all fled away from the house and went to the house of their maternal aunti "Mausi" Durga Devi situated in the same village.
3. It is further alleged that on the next morning on 22.11.2018 at 5.00 A.M when she came back to her house, she saw her mother in a dead state hanging from a bamboo with a piece of cloth tied around her neck. Thereafter, they all started crying upon which the villagers assembled at their house. It is alleged that her uncle Bhodo Rai was having illicit relationship with her mother to which her mother always objected to it. Therefore, it was claimed that her uncle Bhodo Rai had killed her mother by strangulating her and, thereafter, hanging her from a bamboo.
4. It is further alleged that she along with other villagers tried to search for her uncle, but her uncle was found absconding from his house. Thereafter, they informed the local village chaukidar.
5. On the basis of above mentioned fardbayan, Pakuria P.S case 2 number 65/2018 dated 22.11.2018 was registered u/s. 302 IPC against Bhodo Rai and accordingly, after investigation charge sheet was submitted against the sole accused/appellant Bhodo Rai under section 302 of IPC. Consequently, vide order dated 15.04.2019 cognizance of offence u/s, 302 IPC was taken and the case was committed to the learned court of Sessions and charges under section 302 of IPC were framed against the sole accused which was explained to him in Hindi to which he denied and claimed for trial.
6. The trial commenced and learned trial after appreciation of evidence found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC and vide order dated 20.01.2024 the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the trial court the appellant has preferred the instant appeal wherein the instant interlocutory application has been preferred for the suspension of sentence till the pendency of the appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been contained that it is a case where the prosecution has failed to establish the charge.
8. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction is only based upon the circumstantial 3 evidence that appellant has been last seen with the deceased. Further, there was no proximity of time between last seen, reason being that, the body of deceased was seen on 22.11.2018 in the next morning at 5:00 a.m.
9. It has also been submitted that the involvement of the appellant as per circumstantial evidence has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution. Further, the appellant is languishing in custody since 15.01.2019.
10. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid premise has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent
11. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
12. It has been submitted by the learned State Counsel that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the conviction is only based upon the circumstantial evidence as the appellant has been seen together with the deceased last time and this circumstance has not been properly explained by the appellant in his statement.
13. It has further been argued that the testimony of the informant (P.W.1) was corroborated by P.W.4, mausi (aunt) of the informant, who was living in her house has deposed that she saw the deceased 4 and the accused/appellant in a compromising position.
14. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that P.W.1 has remained consistent both in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination and chain of circumstance is completed connecting the appellant with the commission of murder of the deceased, hence, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
Analysis
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses along with other exhibits, as available in the Trial Court Records, as has been called for by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2024
16. This Court has found from the impugned judgment that the conviction is based upon the appreciation of circumstantial evidences as there is no eyewitness to the alleged crime. From perusal of the testimonies, it is apparent that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased at around 12:00 O' Clock in the night of 22.11.2018.
17. It has been testified by the P.W. 1, who is the informant and daughter of the deceased that on 22.11.2018 at about 12 'O' clock in the night, when her uncle Bhodo Rai came to her house and started abusing them and her mother Sadeshwari Devi (deceased) and when she objected then Bhodo Rai threatened her to run 5 away from there or else he will give knife blow to them. Thereafter, out of fear, she along with her brother Subhash Rai and Akash Rai and sister Anjali Kumari went to the house of their "Mausi". It has further been stated by this witness that on the same night, she along with her mausi came back to her house and saw her uncle Bhodo Rai committing sexual intercourse with her mother. Thereafter, she and her mausi out of shame came back to her mausi's house. On the next morning, when she came back to her house, she saw her mother hanging from a bamboo with the help of a "odhni".
18. The aforesaid part of testimony of P.W.1 is fully substantiated by the P.W.4, who is sister of the deceased and has categorically stated that when she was at her house, his devar Bhodo Rai was having a scuffle with his "bhabhi" Sadeswari Devi which was disclosed by her children who had come to her house. Thereafter, she went to their house and saw Bhodo Rai in a compromising position with Sadeshwari Devi (deceased) and upon seeing this, she returned back to her house.
19. Thus, from the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.4, prima facie, it appears that the appellant has been lastly seen in the company of the deceased and thereafter, the body of deceased has been found and further, this circumstance has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. Further, accused/appellant had the burden u/s.106 of Indian Evidence Act to provide a reasonable explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased before her death, 6 which has not been explained by the appellant even in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
20. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the prima facie view that the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused in committing the death of the deceased Sadeshwari Devi.
21. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that since the finding of the learned trial court is based upon the testimony of P.W.1, which has fully been corroborated by the testimony of P.W.4 and as such, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
22. Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.11890 of 2024 stands dismissed.
23. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Rohit/-
7