Suryabrat Maulik @ Suryabrat Moulick And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

I.A. No. 5854 of 2019

Heard learned counsel for the appellant no.2, the State as also the Informant on the prayer for suspension of sentence made through instant interlocutory application.

Both the appellant no.1 husband and appellant no.2 mother-in-law stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2017 by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each with a default sentence u/s 304B/34 of the I.P.C and R.I for 3 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each with a default sentence u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the impugned order of sentence dated 17.02.2018.

In support of his prayer, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant no.2 submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove any role or overt act on the part of mother-in-law either prior to the death regarding demand of dowry or torture or causation of death. The victim died in the bathroom as per the deposition of the Investigating Officer Rama Tigga (P.W.10) and the blade of the fan of the bathroom were found bent. The Medical Officer Dr. Shyam Narayan Sahu (P.W.7) in his post mortem report marked as Ext.3 did not find any external injury except ligature mark 1" wide and 3" deep on the neck. As per the F.S.L report marked as Ext.12, no poisonous substance was found in the viscera. This was the second marriage of the deceased after divorce with the first husband on the ground of impotency. It has also come in the evidence that the appellant no.1 husband was residing in the house of the victim for over one year prior to the marriage, marriage was cordial and there is no criminality in the death. As such appellant no.2 Sonali Maulik @ Sonali Moulick (mother-in-law), who is aged more than 50 years be enlarged on bail on grant of privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal.

Learned counsel for the State and the informant, both strongly opposed the prayer. It is argued that the death has occurred in an unnatural circumstances due to hanging. P.W.1 Shikha Vishwash, aunt of the deceased; P.W.2 Gopal Ji Mishra @ Hanuman Prasad Mishra, neighbor of the deceased; P.W.3 Sushma Sharma, mother of the deceased; P.W.6 Naresh Kumar Mishra, biological father of the deceased and P.W.4 Deodatt Sharma, adoptive father of the deceased, all have deposed about the demand of dowry and death in suspicious circumstances in the matrimonial house, which the appellants have not been able to explain. As such, appellant n.2 should not be enlarged on bail.

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the State as also the informant and taken note of the facts and circumstances including the relevant material evidence relied upon by learned counsel for the rival parties. On perusal of the record, it appears that the deceased was married with appellant no.1 on 22.02.2016 after dissolution of her first marriage on the ground of impotency of her first husband. In the report of the Medical Officer Dr. Shyam Narayan Sahu (P.W.7), no external injury has been found except 1" x 3" deep ligature mark on the neck. Besides that Ext.12 F.S.L. report does not show any poisonous material found in the viscera. As per the Investigating Officer Rama Tigga (P.W.10), the dead body was found in the bathroom wherein the blade of the fan were found bent. Prosecution witnesses in general have alleged demand of dowry. Appellant no.2 is the mother-in-law. Appellant no.1 husband of the deceased is in custody. Considering the circumstances in totality, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant no.2 Sonali Maulik @ Sonali Moulick on bail by granting her the privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, appellant no.2 Sonali Maulik @ Sonali Moulick is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in connection with Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2017, subject to the condition that the appellant no.2 and her bailors should not change their address without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

I.A. No.5854 of 2019 stands disposed of.