Dismissed¶23

Sukari Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Bail – rejection – murder (Sections 302/34 IPC)

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2024B.A./1922/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. Nos.1922, 1924 and 1925 of 2024; common order dated 01.08.2024; Justice Subhash Chand; bail application rejected; S.T. Case No.249 of 2023; Chandwa P.S. Case No.140 of 2023; Sections 302/34 IPC; murder of Kalawati Devi; throttling; ligature mark; fractured hyoid bone; Asphyxia due to hanging; rope recovered on confessional statement of Sukari Devi; hostile witnesses Sawanti Devi, Ramdev Munda, Kalawati Devi; corroborating witnesses Jyoti Sahu and Dinesh Munda; no evidence of separate living; Sessions Judge, Latehar; District Latehar; counsel Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak; APPs Someshwar Roy, Subodh Kumar Dubey, Snehlika Bhagat.

What did the court decide?

The bail applications of all three petitioners are rejected. ¶23

Sukari Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners — Sukari Devi, Braji Kishore Munda and Biru Munda, accused in S.T. Case No.249 of 2023 arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No.140 of 2023 under Sections 302/34 IPC pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar — should be released on bail, these three bail applications having arisen out of the same case crime and being disposed of by a common order.

¶16

Court's answer

The bail applications of all three petitioners are rejected.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

All prosecution witnesses stated that the deceased was throttled to death and this is corroborated by the medical evidence; the postmortem shows a ligature mark on the neck, a fractured hyoid bone, and cause of death as 'Asphyxia' due to hanging; the inquest shows scratch marks on the right and left leg caused by tying of rope.

¶22

Key takeaways

On the confessional statement of petitioner Sukari Devi, the rope used in commission of the murder was recovered.ratio¶22
There is no evidence, per paragraph 7 of the case-diary, of the petitioners living separately from the deceased, negating the defence plea of separate residence.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — rejection — murder (Sections 302/34 IPC) — High Court of Jharkhand (Subhash Chand, J.) rejected the bail applications of Sukari Devi (mother-in-law), Braji Kishore Munda (bhaisur) and Biru Munda (brother-in-law) of the deceased Kalawati Devi, sought in S.T. Case No.249 of 2023 arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No.140 of 2023, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar. The Court found witnesses Jyoti Sahu and Dinesh Munda corroborated the prosecution story; all prosecution witnesses deposed the deceased was throttled to death, corroborated by medical evidence showing ligature mark on the neck, fractured hyoid bone, and death due to 'Asphyxia' due to hanging; the inquest showed scratch marks on the legs caused by tying of rope; a rope was recovered on the confessional statement of Sukari Devi said to have been used in the murder; village witnesses examined during trial turned hostile; and, per paragraph 7 of the case-diary, there was no evidence that the petitioners lived separately from the deceased.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1922 of 2024

¶2

Sukari Devi aged about 61 years w/o Budhu Munda r/o village Hesalong, P.O. & P.S. Chandwa, District – Latehar. ..... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶5

With

¶6

B.A. No.1924 of 2024

¶7

Braji Kishore Munda aged about 34 years s/o Budhu Munda r/o village Hesalong P.O. & P.S. Chandwa, District Latehar ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶8

With

¶9

B.A. No.1925 of 2024

¶10

Biru Munda aged about 29 years s/o Aganu Munda r/o village Tati P.O. & P.S. Kuru District Latehar. ..... … Petitioner Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶14

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, A.P.P. --------

¶15

08/01.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.Ps. for the State.

¶16

Since these bail applications have arisen out of the same case crime i.e., Chandwa P.S. Case No.140 of 2023, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶17

These bail applications have been filed on behalf of the abovenamed petitioners with prayer to release on bail in connection with S.T. Case No.249 of 2023 arising out of Chandwa P.S. Case No.140 of 2023 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Latehar.

¶18

As per allegations made in the F.I.R., the informant Shatrudhan Munda has alleged that his sister Kalawati Devi was married with Dhiraj Munda and she has also a five years old son. It is further alleged that the husband of her sister was in Latehar Jail. The mother-in-law of his sister Sukari Devi, father-in-law Budhu Munda, Bhaisur Braj Kishore Munda,

¶19

Gotni Pushpa Devi and brother-in-law Niraj Munda all used to quarrel with his sister and beat her. On 2^nd July, 2023, an information was received from the bhaisur of his sister over the phone that his sister had committed suicide by hanging herself. When the informant reached to his sister-inlaw’s house, found her dead and there was scratch marks on her neck and hands as well.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sukari Devi is the mother-in-law, Braj Kishore Munda is bhaisur and Biru Munda is brother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased was residing separate from them and she had committed suicide. There are no external injury in postmortem report and cause of death is shown ‘Asphyxia’ due to hanging. It is further submitted that nothing incriminating article was recovered on the confessional statements of Biru Munda and Braj Kishore Munda. One rope is alleged to have been recovered on the confessional statement of Sukari Devi.

¶21

Learned A.P.Ps. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

The witness, Jyoti Sahu (brother of the deceased by relation) and Dinesh Munda (the cousin brother of the deceased) have corroborated the prosecution story. In inquest report of the deceased, the scratch mark are shown on right and left leg caused by tying of rope. The independent witness of the village, namely, Sawanti Devi, Ramdev Munda and Kalawati Devi have been examined during trial and they have turned hostile. In postmortem report of the deceased, the ligature mark is shown on her neck. The cause of death is shown ‘Asphyxia’ due to hanging. The hyoid bone is also shown fractured. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased was throttled to death and the same is also corroborated by the medical evidence. On confessional statement of Sukari Devi, the rope was also recovered which was used in commission of the murder. In view of paragraph 7 of the case-diary, there is no evidence of separate living of all these petitioners.

¶23

In view of the submissions made and materials on record, the bail applications of the petitioners are, hereby, rejected.

¶24

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶25

Rohit

¶26

-2-

Sukari Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukari Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Das Alias Suwash Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lala Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Surendra Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brajkishor Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Biru Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitish Choubey Alias Nitish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand