Sushma vs State of U.P.

Shyam Shankar Tiwari, J.

The appellantSushma has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 364A and120B IPC vide judgement and order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtIII, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 574 of 2007, Police Station: Gagalhedi, District: Saharanpur.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents and have perused the record as well as the written objection filed by the Staterespondents.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellantSushma has been wrongly implicated in the case primarily because her husband had lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) against Lakhan Singh, who was Investigating Officer in the case. It is also submitted that besides this, a complaint had been made by the appellant against the Investigating Officer and the Circle Officer before the Human Rights Commission and it was because of this that the appellantSushma, who was not named in the first information report, has been implicated in the matter during investigation, It is further submitted that the conviction of the appellant is primarily on the ground that the letter asking for ransom was written by the appellant where the handwriting was not examined by any qualified independent person but by a unregistered and unqualified expert who himself stated in the statement that he has no formal education in the line and has certificate of being a handwriting expert from his father who has fifteen years'' experience. It is however submitted that the application for getting the letter and the handwriting examined by any Government Forensic Laboratory, was rejected by the Trial Court. It is further contended that the conviction of the appellant has thus based on highly unreliable expert evidence, which was, according to the appellant, was obtained by the Investigating officer on payment. It is further submitted that the appellant is a lady and in case if she is granted bail, she would not misuse the same. Further contention is that the appellant was on bail during trial proceedings and has never misused the same.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that the appellant is a lady whose husband had lodged a complaint against the Investigating Officer and also the fact that the handwriting expert was not a duly qualified person, in our view, the appellant has made out a prima faice case for grant of bail.

Let the appellantSushma be enlarged on bail on her furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur subject to depositing one half of the amount of fine imposed by the Trial Court. The realization of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.