Patna High Court – Orders
Sushila Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 23 January, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4803 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-781 Year-2019 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Mukesh Thakur Son of Binda Thakur Resident of Village- Serukahi, P.S.-
Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
2. Rikesh Thakur Son of Late Binda Thakur Resident of Village- Serukahi,
P.S.- Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dinesh Kumar Pandey Son of Ram Chandra Pandey Resident of Village-
Bheriyahi Salauna, P.S.- Kanti (Panapur O.P.), Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4602 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-781 Year-2019 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Sushila Devi Wife of Late Binda Thakur Resident of Village- Serukahi, P.S.-
Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
2. Rangeela Devi Wife of Mukesh Thakur Resident of Village- Serukahi, P.S.-
Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dinesh Kumar Pandey Son of Ram Chandra Pandey Resident of Village-
Beriyahi Salauna, P.S.- Kanti(Panapur O.P.), Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4803 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ramchandra Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4602 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Adv.
Mr.Shashi Bhushan Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ramchandra Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 23-01-2025
Heard Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Ramchandra Singh, learned APP.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4803 of 2024(4) dt.23-01-2025
2/7
Cr. Appeal No. 4803 of 2024
2. The aforesaid appeal on behalf of the appellants,
namely Mukesh Thakur and Rikesh Thakur has been
preferred against the judgment of conviction passed by learned
11th Additional Session Muzaffarpur arising out of Kanti P.S.
Case No. 781 of 2019, S.Tr. No. 277 of 2021, vide an order
dated 27.08.2024 and 31.08.2024 by which they have been
convicted and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 10 years u/s
304(B)/34 of the I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
ten thousand), and further S.I. of three months in default of
payment of fine and further, R.I. for five years and to pay fine
Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) u/s 315/34 of IP.C. and S.I. of
two months in case of the fault of fine, S.I. for three years and
fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 498A of I.P.C., S.I. for two months in
default to pay fine. All sentences have been directed to run
concurrently and the imprisonment already undergone shall be
set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Cr. Appeal No. 4602 of 2024
3. The aforesaid appeal has been preferred on behalf
of the appellants, namely, Sushila Devi and Rangeela Devi
against the judgment of conviction passed by learned 11th
Additional Session Muzaffarpur arising out of Kanti P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4803 of 2024(4) dt.23-01-2025
3/7
No. 781 of 2019, S.Tr. No. 277 of 2021 judgment and order
dated 27.08.2024 and 31.08.2024 by which the appellants,
Sushila Devi and Rangeela Devi have been convicted and
sentenced to undergo R.l. for 07 years u/s 304(B)/34 of the
I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), and
further S.I. of three months in default of payment of fine and
further, R.I. for five years and to pay fine Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees
five thousand) u/s 315/34 of IP.C. and S.I. of two months in case
of the fault of fine, S.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s
498A of I.P.C., S.I. for two months in default to pay fine. All
sentences were directed to run concurrently and imprisonment
already undergone shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
4. Earlier, the Co-ordinate Bench admitted the two
appeals on 13.11.2024 and 30.10.2024 respectively and the Trial
court records were called for which have now come.
5. The prosecution story is that the informant alleged
that his niece has been killed by the in-laws and the body was
hanging with a fan. Upon reaching the place found his niece
hanging with the fan and neighbours informed that she has been
killed. This led to the investigation which followed the charge-
sheet, cognizance and ultimately, the appellants faced the trial.
6. The trial court after completion, found them guilty
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4803 of 2024(4) dt.23-01-2025
4/7
and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as follows:-
Sl. No. Appellant Sentence Fine
1. Mukesh R.l. for 10 years u/s 10,000/-
Thakur
304(B)/34 of the I.P.C. in
default of payment of fine, 5,000/-
and
SI for three months, R.I.
for five years u/s 315/34 of 5,000/-
IPC in default of payment
2. Rikesh
Thakur of fine, SI for two months,
S.I. for three years u/s
498A of I.P.C. in default
of payment of fine, SI for
two months
3. Sushila R.l. for 7 years u/s 10,000/-
Devi
304(B)/34 of the I.P.C. in
default of payment of fine, 5,000/-
and SI for three months,
R.I. for five years u/s 5,000/-
315/34 of IP.C. in default
4. Rangeela
Devi of payment of fine, SI for
two months
S.I. for three years u/s S.I.
for three years u/s 498A of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4803 of 2024(4) dt.23-01-2025
5/7
I.P.C., in default of
payment of fine, SI for two
months
7. The appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 4602 of 2024
Sushila Devi and Rangeela Devi are mother-in-law and sister-in-
law respectively, while the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 4803 of
2024 are brother-in-law (Mukesh Thakur) and the husband
(Rikesh Thakur).
8. Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the appellants
submit that the husband being signatory to the FIR, ironically,
he now stands convicted and sentenced. Further, admitted fact is
that while the mother-in-law is 74 years of age, the sister-in-law
and the brother-in-law were living separately. The period of
custody of all the four appellants are as follows:-
“(i) Sushila Devi- (a) 01.03.2021 to 05.11.2022 and
(b) 27.08.2024 till date
(ii) Rangeela Devi- (a) 01.03.2021 to 17.05.2022 and
(b) 27.08.2024 till date
(iii) Mukesh Thakur-(a)01.03.2021 to 17.05.2022 and
(b) 27.08.2024 till date
(iv) Nikesh Thakur- (a) 20.04.2021 till date.”
9. None of the appellants have criminal antecedent.
10. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4803 of 2024(4) dt.23-01-2025
6/7
so far as the appellants, Mukesh Thakur and Rikesh Thakur
(Cr. Appeal No. 4803 of 2024) are concerned, they have been
convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years under
Section 304(B) of the IPC beside other Sections and as such,
they do not deserve bail. His further submission is that so far
as the female appellants, namely, Sushila Devi and Rangeela
Devi are concerned, though they have remained in custody for
around one year, the conviction has been RI for seven years
under Section 304(B) IPC besides other sections.
11. Having gone through the facts of the case and
details on record as also submissions of the parties, so far as
Mukesh Thakur and Rikesh Thakur (Cr. Appeal No. 4803 of
2024) are concerned, considering the fact that in the opinion of
the Medical Officer as also the cause of death has been recorded
as asphyxia due to strangulation, they have been convicted and
sentenced for RI 10 years, this Court declines relief to them.
Accordingly, their prayer for bail stands rejected.
12. So far as the two ladies, namely, Sushila Devi
and Rangeela Devi (Cr. Appeal No. 4602 of 2024) are
concerned, while one is 74 years old, the other is sister-in-law
(Gotni), they have remained in custody as stated above, have no
criminal antecedents, there is no likelihood of the appeal to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4803 of 2024(4) dt.23-01-2025
7/7
taken up in near future, in that background, this Court is
inclined to grant them relief. Further, the sentence of fine of the
appellants is/are suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
13. Let the appellants, namely, Sushila Devi and
Rangeela Devi (Cr. Appeal No. 4602 of 2024), be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
11th Additional Session in connection with S.Tr. No. 277 of 2021
arising out of Kanti P.S. Case No. 781 of 2019, subject to the
following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
members/relative of the appellants who shall provide official
document to show his bona fide;
(ii) the appellants shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
14. The realization of fine imposed on the appellants
shall also remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
perwez
U T
[ad_1]
Source link