Dismissed¶20

Chemo Godsora v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Sept 2024B.A./5749/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; dowry death; Sections 304-B IPC; Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; cruelty and torture for nonfulfillment of dowry demand; unnatural death within seven years of marriage; husband-accused; suicide/asphyxia submission by State; charge not yet framed; tampering with evidence apprehended; Gamharia P.S. Case No.05 of 2024 dated 23.01.2024; Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi; B.A. No.5749 of 2024; Navneet Kumar, J.; decided 23.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

There is ample evidence that the deceased wife was subjected to torture and cruelty by the petitioner-husband due to nonfulfillment of the demand of dowry. ¶19

Chemo Godsora Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5749 of 2024

¶2

Chemo Godsora, son of Sri Boka Godsora @ Hari Godsora, aged about 25 years, resident of village Jiakan, Bindapur, P.O. Dudra, P.S. Gamahari, District- Seraikella, Kharsawan

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Mintu Pinguwa, son of Sagar Pinguwa, resident of village Baghbeda, P.O. & P.S. Baghbeda, District- East Singhbhum,

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP

¶10

-----

¶11

3/23.09.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned PP appearing for the State.

¶12

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No.05 of 2024 dated 23.01.2024, registered under Sections 304-B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the gist of the allegation against the petitioner as set out in the FIR is that the petitioner, being the husband of the deceased-wife, has killed his wife due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry by causing cruelty and torture to her within seven years of her marriage and as such he has been charged for the offences of dowry death punishable under Sections 304-B of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶14

Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the entire allegations of demand of dowry and causing cruelty and torture due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry are false and concocted and it has been submitted that the deceased has committed suicide because the petitioner being the husband did not allow her to go her maike (parents’ house) and there is no such allegation of causing torture and cruelty due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry to the deceased wife by the petitioner husband.

¶15

On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the wife (deceased) has committed suicide, which is unnatural death which is caused otherwise than under normal circumstances and there are ample evidences for causing torture and

¶16

cruelty as she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the husband petitioner by various means due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry as evident from paras- 4,5,6,9,11,19 & 20 of the case diary.

¶17

Further it has also been submitted vide para-27 of the case diary that the cause of death, which has been confirmed by Dr. R.K. Jaiswal of Sadar Hospital, Saraikela-Kharsawan and the said doctor has stated that the ‘death due to Asphyxia caused by constriction of neck as a result of suspension and the weight of the body of the victim pulls upon the ligature’ and therefore it is submitted that it is case where the deceased died because of unnatural death within seven years of marriage occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances and there are ample evidences for causing torture and cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry within seven years of her marriage and as such offence under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are fully substantiated and the charge has yet not been framed and therefore possibility of tampering with the evidence is also very imminent and therefore, this petitioner, being the husband, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the record of this case.

¶19

Having taken into consideration the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the State and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and also there are ample evidences for causing torture and cruelty to the deceased wife by petitioner husband due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and the death of the deceased was caused within seven years of marriage in unnatural way, it is not found just and fair to enlarge the petitioner, being the husband, on bail in this case.

¶20

Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶21

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶22

R.Kumar

¶23

-2-

Chemo Godsora v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chemo Godsora 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

Natwa Tudu Alias Natuwa Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shishu Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Thakur Alias Bunty Vs the State of Jharkhand

Etwa Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhilesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ariful Sk Vs the State of Jharkhand