Nitish Kumar Bharti vs State Of Jharkhand

I.A. No. 9238 of 2019

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. P. K. Appu, learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant.

This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.

The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/201/436 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been alleged that in course of enquiry in connection with U.D. Case No. 02 of 2017 the witnesses had disclosed that at the time of occurrence one boy whose trouser was on fire was seen fleeing away and he was identified as the appellant. It has been alleged that the appellant was in love with the deceased Lovely Kumari and the informant further came to know that the appellant was under medical treatment at Biru Hospital. It has been alleged that the appellant had disclosed that he was in the house of the deceased and the brother of the deceased had sprinkled Kerosene Oil upon him as a result of which he suffered burn injuries. It has further been alleged that the appellant had confessed and stated that the deceased was in love with him but later on she had denied to marry him and on the date of occurrence the appellant had entered into the house of the deceased and found her sleeping at which he pressed her neck and thereafter sprinkled petrol upon her and put her on fire and in course of the same the appellant had also sustained burn injuries.

It has been submitted by Mr. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that initially U.D. Case No. 02 of 2017 was instituted by P.W. – 1 in which it was alleged that the incident had taken place due to a short circuit. Learned counsel submits that the First Information Report was instituted on 14.02.2017 after about four days. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion since he was having a love affair with the deceased. It has been submitted that the case is of honour killing but the police has with an oblique motive, implicated the appellant.

Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in U.D. Case No. 02 of 2017, P.W. – 5 had also signed but subsequently a new story was narrated and in fact P.W. – 2 and P.W.– 4 who are the neighbours of the deceased were the first persons to have reached the place of occurrence and had also seen the appellant fleeing away which was disclosed to P.W. – 5 but in spite of the same P.W. – 5 had not made any efforts initially to insinuate the present appellant.         Mr. Tewari, further submits that the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to smothering and the burn injuries found on the person of the deceased was opined to be post mortem in nature. It has been submitted that there are contradictions galore in the evidence of the witnesses and in fact the entire facets of the case would indicate that the appellant has been framed at the behest of the brother of the deceased who though knowing about the disclosure made by P.W. – 2 and P.W. – 4 had remained silent at the initial stage.

Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted while referring to the evidence of P.W. – 35 (Investigating Officer) that the deposition of P.W. – 2 and P.W. – 4 have been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. – 3. It has further been submitted that the appellant had kept his mobiles at the house of his sister and thereafter came to the house of the deceased, smothered her and burnt her and in fact the same would indicate the preplanned manner in which the deceased was done to death.

It has been submitted that the delay of four days in lodging the First Information Report has been suitably explained since the real facts of the case came to light only upon conducting enquiry in U.D. Case No. 02 of 2017 and since strong circumstances emanated from the evidence of the witnesses the First Information Report was instituted by P.W. – 36. It has also been submitted that since the deceased had got employment in Jharkhand Police the same caused a strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased and which resulted in the commission of murder.

It appears that P.W. – 2 and P.W. – 4 who are the neighbours of the deceased have stated that in between 03:30-04:00 a.m. on 10.02.2017 they had seen a miscreant standing near the well whose trouser was on fire and who was trying to put out the fire. It has also been deposed that the miscreant who was later on identified as the appellant at the time of fleeing away had left his watch and trouser in the field. P.W. – 3 Joy Barla who is a Security Guard at Medol Lab, Simdega has deposed that he was awakened in the early morning by the appellant who was very afraid and shivering and asked him to get him admitted at Biru Hospital. This witness has stated that his apparels were found in a slightly burnt condition. P.W. – 5 is the brother of the deceased who has stated about P.W. – 2 and P.W. – 4 disclosing to him about the appellant putting off the fire and fleeing away but it appears that P.W. – 5 in spite of knowing the said fact did not take any initiative to get an FIR registered against the appellant. Though the prosecution has tried to make out a case that it was the appellant who had burnt the deceased and in the said process he himself suffered burn injuries but it appears from the evidence of the witnesses that though the appellant seems to have been present at the time of the incident but a doubt has been created as to whether it was the appellant who had put the deceased on fire. It also appears that P.W. – 2 and P.W. – 4 had reached to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident had taken place and had seen the appellant fleeing away but surprisingly none of the inmates of the house seems to have stated about seeing the appellant fleeing away.

On consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Simdega, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 73 of 2017 arising out of Simdega P. S. Case No. 10 of 2017, corresponding to G. R. No. 71 of 2017.

I.A. No. 9238 of 2019 stands allowed and disposed of.