Pritam Kumar Ambedkar aged about 25 years, S/o Manik Ravidas, resident of village Chatrochatti v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4782 of 2024 Pritam Kumar Ambedkar aged about 25 years, S/o Manik Ravidas, resident of village Chatrochatti, P.O. & P.S. Chatrochatti, District … Petitioner Bokaro ..... Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. 06/9th September, 2024 -------- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed petitioner with the prayer to release on bail in connection with Chatrochatti P.S. Case No. 06 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 356 of 2021, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and cognizance was taken under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. The written report of this case was given by Vinod Ravidas, the brother of deceased with these allegations that his sister Dulari Devi was married in the year 2017 with Pritam Kumar Ambedkar. After marriage till the date of lodging the FIR, both lived well as husband and wife. All of sudden on 12.12.2018, in the night, the information came from the in-laws’ house of his sister that his sister had hanged herself. On receiving this information, he reached to police station of Chatrochatti. On 13.12.2018 at 6:30 a.m., the post mortem of his sister was conducted by the police in Sub Divisional hospital at Chas, Bokaro and after post-mortem report, he has no doubt upon any one in regard to causing death of his sister. On this written - 1 - information, U.D. Case No. 6 of 2018 was registered on 13.12.2018. 4. In this very U.D. Case No. 6 of 2018, an application was given by Babulal Marandi, Sub Inspector of Police Station Chatrochatti with these allegations that the investigation of this U.D. Case No. 6 of 2018 was handed over to him by Rana Bhanu Pratap Singh, the then S.H.O. He also got the post mortem report of deceased Dulari Devi from the Sub Divisional Hospital Chas Bokaro wherein the cause of death is shown as asphyxia as a result of strangulation. As such it was a case of murder and, thereafter, Chatrochatti P.S. Case No. 6 of 2021 was registered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though the FIR of this case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet was also filed for the very offence in Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, yet the cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the paragraph no. 12 and 13 of the case diary. In paragraph 12 of the case diary, the statement of the mother of victim was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which she stated that her daughter was married in the year 2017 and the relation between her daughter and son-in-law were good. After few days, her son-in-law went out of the State to earn livelihood and her daughter remained in her in-laws’ house with other family members but she was not happy there. On the very date of occurrence, she wanted to have conversation with her daughter but she refused to talk out of fear that some family member might see her and in that case, she would be ousted from the matrimonial house. 7. On the very day at 12 o’clock in the night, one police personnel came from the Police Station Chatrochatti and told that her daughter had committed suicide. She went there and found the dead body lying on the bed and there was injury mark on her - 2 - neck and her hand was also fractured. Since the hand was also fractured, it was not a case of suicide, rather it was a case of murder. Same kind of statement is given by the brother of the deceased Vinod Ravidas. 8. In paragraph 62 of the case diary, the statement of police officer Bhanu Pratap Singh was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which he had stated that during investigation, he reached to the place of occurrence and found that the door of the house was bolted from inside. Only one grilled window was there. As he peeped through the window and saw that the deceased had committed suicide. The persons of the locality and mukhiya of the village Mahadeo Mahto were called and in his presence and at his behest, Pravin Sanga broke the door of the house and dead body was brought out which was hanged. The videography and photography was also made by the mobile phone and U.D. Case No. 6 of 2018 was registered. Same kind of statement was given by Mahadeo Mahto, mukhiya of the village, Charka Ravidas one of the villager, Jiten Ram and Pravin Sanga also who have also reiterated this fact that the door of the room was broken and dead body was brought out which was hanged and, thereafter, the post mortem of the deceased was conducted. On the basis of the post mortem report, the cause of death was shown asphyxia as a result of strangulation. So the FIR was registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The cause of death as shown in the post mortem report is the opinion and the same is not corroborated with the statement of the prosecution witnesses, who have categorically stated that the dead body was hanged in the room which was bolted from inside and the door was broken and, thereafter, the dead body was brought down. So far as the fracture of the hand as stated by the mother and brother of the deceased is concerned, same is not shown in the post mortem report. 9. As per the statement made by the witnesses, the petitioner - 3 - who is the husband of deceased, was on the fateful night not at the matrimonial house, rather he had gone out of State to earn money. There are no allegations made in regard to the demand of dowry or harassment being made for non fulfilment of the same. 10.
Decision
In view of the above, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby allowed. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing the bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in the aforesaid case. Rashmi (Subhash Chand, J.) - 4 -