Prakash Chandra Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand

I.A. No. 892 of 2021

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected in I.A. No. 9131 of 2019 vide order dated 27.11.2019.

Through this interlocutory application the appellant has renewed his prayer for grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.

It has been submitted by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned trial court had committed an error while convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code though the findings of the Medical Board indicates that it was a case of hanging and not strangulation as has been opined by the doctors who had conducted the autopsy. Learned counsel submits that the deceased had a love marriage with the appellant in the year 2011 and even the evidence of the informant suggests that the appellant had fulfilled the desires of the deceased. Mr. Tewari in support of his contention that it was a case of suicidal hanging and not strangulation has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. – 9, 10 and 15. In support of his contention, Mr. Tewari has relied upon Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edition.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

It appears from the First Information Report that the marriage of the daughter of the informant (P.W. – 8) was solemnized with the appellant in the year 2011 and prior to a year of the occurrence both were staying in a rented house. It has been alleged that after a few days of marriage, the appellant had demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- as dowry and on non-fulfilment of which she was subjected to torture.

It appears from the evidence of P.W. – 2 who is the younger sister of the deceased that on 20.05.2016 she was having a conversation with the deceased in which it was disclosed that if the demand of Rs. 3,00,000/- is not fulfilled, she will face some problems. On 22.05.2016 P.W. – 2 had received an information about the death of her sister. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated about the demand of dowry and the torture meted out to the deceased by the present appellant. So far as the post mortem of the deceased is concerned, it appears that the same was carried out by a Medical Board comprising of P.Ws. – 9, 10 and 15. While referring to the findings of the autopsy Mr. Tewari has tried to correlate the said findings with the studies with respect to the signs on the dead body in case of suicidal hanging and that of strangulation as depicted in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edition. While stating so attention of the Court has been drawn to the differences between hanging and strangulation as enumerated in the same and it has been stated that the various findings given by the Medical Board clearly indicates that it was a case of suicidal hanging for which reference has been made to the ligature mark which is External Finding No. II which according to him is not continuous round the neck and low down in the neck below the thyroid which substantiates his contention that it was a case of suicidal hanging.

The external findings with respect to the ligature mark does not at all indicate with certainty that it was a case of suicidal hanging as submitted by Mr. Tewari and a case of strangulation as has been opined by the Medical Board cannot at all be ruled out. Mr. Tewari, has also referred to the External Findings No. V wherein no petachiae was detected on the face which is the hall mark of a case of suicidal hanging as in strangulation the face is marked with petachiae.

Such infirmities as pointed out by Mr. Tewari cannot lead to a conclusion that it was a case of suicidal hanging as various other factors associated with strangulation were present on the body of the deceased. Moreover, it appears that the defence had not confronted P.Ws. 9, 10 and 15 with specific questions regarding the stand taken that it was a case of suicidal hanging.

On consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant during the pendency of this appeal. The prayer for bail of the appellant is, hereby, rejected.

I.A. No. 892 of 2021 stands dismissed.