Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 April, 2017
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A.No. 4043 of 2016
Raj Kumar Mahto ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N.Roy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite party : APP
---------
Reserved on 04.04.2017 Pronounced on 06.04.2017
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with the case registered under Sections 306/34 of
the IPC.
The present case has been lodged on the basis of a
written report of Parwati Devi, mother of the deceased,
alleging therein that the deceased was married with this
petitioner according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, the
deceased lived for sometime in her Sasural peacefully, but
thereafter she was being tortured by her husband and in-laws.
In this connection, after intervention of well-wishers and
relatives of the family, matter was tried to short out, but
failed. Thereafter, on 22.04.2015, the deceased returned to
her Maike and remained there. It is further alleged that on
24.5.2015, the deceased was talked with her husband for a long time and after keeping phone, the deceased entered into the room and started shouting and consumed poison, thereafter the deceased was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly, the deceased had consumed poison on her Maike (parental house) and there is no material to suggest that the petitioner is responsible for committing suicide by the deceased. It is further submitted that the father-in-law, mother-law and Phua of the deceased have been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court and the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and Anr. reported in (2009)1 SCC 554, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
B. Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 306 and 107- Abatement of suicide- Held, words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation-
Words and Phrases- "Instigate" and
"abatement" meaning.
Held;
It is fairly well settled that words uttered in a fit anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation.
Additionally, there was no suicide note in the present case. Different versions of death were given. At the earlier stage, during investigation under Section 174 Cr.PC, the version was that the accused had accompanied the deceased to the native home, but subsequently stand was that the accused did not accompany the deceased because the latter was bad and ugly looking. Admittedly, marriage was an arranged one. If that is so, it is not believable that the deceased and the accused had not met. The alleged grievance of the accused that the deceased was an ugly man could not have been noticed after marriage, for the first time on 3.6.2004. The appellant (father) filed a complaint to the Superannuated of Police after about two and a half months of the alleged incident. Allegation was that the police did not register a complaint.
Ultimately, the complaint was filed on 26.08.2004. (para 12 and 13) Learned APP has submitted that the case diary has been received and from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the I.O has recorded the statement of Parvati Devi, at para 2 and the other witnesses at para-9, 10 and 11 of the case diary, who have supported the prosecution case.
The Statement of Sukhdeo Mahto, father of the deceased has been recorded at para 9 of the case diary, who has alleged that in the past also, this petitioner had given a chocolate with poison to the deceased and had asked her to eat in her parental house, but due to intervention of her Nanad, the same could not done. Further it is categorically stated that before consuming poison, the petitioner instigated the deceased for taking poison.
In para 10 of the case diary, Devika Mahto, recorded her similar statement.
In para 44 of the case diary, it appears that cause of death could not be ascertained and therefore opinion is reserved as the report of forensic lab and biochemical analysis of above preserved viscera are not available.
It appears that the judgment relied upon by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of this case.
Keeping all these facts and the conduct of the husband/petitioner that the deceased was talking with her husband for a long time and after keeping phone, she entered into the room and started shouting and consumed poison, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Fahim/