PAPPU KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

LAWS(JHAR)-2019-4-177

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

Decided on April 24,2019

PAPPU KUMAR Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi - (1.) I.A. No. 11320 of 2018 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State on the interlocutory application for granting bail, during the pendency of this appeal. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine. According to the prosecution case, the daughter of the informant came to her house after cutting grass, and started vomiting. She disclosed that when she was cutting the grass, the accused inquired on mobile phone from Chhoti Kumari, who was also cutting grass with her, about their presence. Upon getting the information that the victim girl was present there, the appellant went there and asked her as to why she was not talking with him, whereupon she stated she would not talk to him. It is alleged that the appellant slapped her and pressurized her to talk with him due to which, the victim consumed poison and subsequently she died during treatment. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but no offence can be said to be made out, in view of the fact that asking the victim to talk with him or slapping her will not amount to abatement for committing the suicide. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Shree and Anr., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 554, wherein it has been held that words uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention, cannot be termed as instigation. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2008 (2) East Cr. C. 199 (Jhr), wherein where, the wife had committed suicide after some altercation with her husband, the husband was granted bail by this Court, holding that he could not be said to have abetted the suicide, in terms of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Placing reliance upon these decisions, learned counsel has prayed for bail. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. The facts of this case are quite different. It shows that the appellant was following the girl and was forcing to talk with her, which she denied, and she was even slapped by the appellant for forcing her to talk with him. The offence of 'Stalking' under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code, is clearly made out, and this is a case, in which, due to that 'stalking', by the appellant, the victim had committed suicide, though for that offence, the appellant was neither tried nor convicted. In the facts of this case, we are not inclined to release appellant, Pappu Kuamar, on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. This interlocutory application stands dismissed. ;

Click here to view full judgement.