Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 152 (PAT)

Jagdish Rais v. State Of Bihar

2001-02-19

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2001
Judgment INDU PRABHA SINGH, J. 1. Both the Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1999 arising out of a common judgment and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1999; Awadhesh Kumar Yadav has been convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and other two appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1999; Jagdish Rai and Mithlesh Rai, have been convicted under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. They have been further convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code/but no separate sentence has been passed in the aforesaid section. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act"). 3. The case of the prosecution as per the fardbeyan Ext. 4 of Deep Narain Yadav is that the informant Deep Narain Yadav and his son Sukhdeo Rai gave their statements on 10.5.1995 at 7.30 before the Officer- in-charge Jaithpur police station near the burning ghat (Samsan Ghat). He had stated that his daughter Geeta Devi was married in the year 1993 to appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav of village Govindpur. It has been further stated that at the time of marriage, the appellant Awadhesh Kumar, his son-in-law demanded motor cycle in dowry. It has been further alleged that when the daughter of the informant returned to her father house from her in laws house, she told the informant that her husband used to assault her and threatened her for getting motor cycle and he also threatened her that if the motor cycle will not be given, she will be killed. She also stated that besides her husband other family members of her in-laws house also harassed and assaulted her. The further case of the prosecution is that after second marriage in the month of January, 1995 Geeta Devi (deceased) had gone to her in-laws house, but she was not living happily and their in-laws were always asking for fulfilment of the demand of motor cycle and if, it will not be given, she would be killed. The further case of the prosecution is that after second marriage in the month of January, 1995 Geeta Devi (deceased) had gone to her in-laws house, but she was not living happily and their in-laws were always asking for fulfilment of the demand of motor cycle and if, it will not be given, she would be killed. It has been stated that on 10.5.1999 at 7 a.m. while the informant was going to school in the way, when he reached near Ginja temple, one Hari Shankar Rai of Ginja village told him that his daughter Geeta Devi was killed and on this information, the informant went back to his village and he along with his son and one other pro- ceeded to Govindpur, Nayatola, which was Sasural of his daughter. As soon as the informant reached at the place, where she was kept for burning and seeing them they lit pyre immediately. The informant immediately informed the police and the police came and the dead-body almost burnt was taken away by the police and some remains were sent for postmortem examination. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and sub-sequendy the trial concluded with the result indicated above. 4. The case of the defence is that the deceased Geeta Devi was suffering from heart disease and in spite of her treatment, she did not survive and died her natural way. They have totally denied that there was any demand of dowry and the deceased was harassed by them. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether nine witnesses, including PW 1 Parmeshwar Prasad, PW 2 Sudhir Kumar, PW 3 Mithlesh Kumar, PW 4 Subodh Kumar, PW 5 Sanjeev Kumar, PW 6 Surendra Rai. PW 7 Shanti Devi and PW 8 Deep Narain Yadav, who is informant. PW 9 is Sitaram Rai, who has been tendered. PW 8. the informant Deep Narain Yadav has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in the First Information Report. PW 7 Shanti Devi and PW 8 Deep Narain Yadav, who is informant. PW 9 is Sitaram Rai, who has been tendered. PW 8. the informant Deep Narain Yadav has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in the First Information Report. He has stated that on 10.5.1995 at 7.30, in the village Govindpur near the burning ghat (Samshan Ghat) and he gave his fardbeyan to the officer-in-charge Jaithpur police station that his daughter Geeta Devi was married to appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav in the year 1993 and she was being tortured and harassed for the demand of motor cycle by his son-in-law Awadhesh Kumar Yadav and other family members. He also stated that when his daughter had come to his house she told him that her husband used to assault her for demand of motor cycle and was always threatened her that if the motor cycle will not be given. she will be killed. He has further stated that when he received the news of death of his daughter from one Harishankar Rai, when he was going to school near Ginja temple, he along with two others went to village Govindpur when his daughter had been taken away to burning ghat. He saw 15-16 persons were attending the cremation of his daughter. He has stated that when he asked the appellant about the death of his daughter, they replied that his daughter died due to snake bite. He has stated that he informed the police and the police came and the appellants were arrested and his fardbeyan was recorded. PW 6 is the mother of the victim girl, who also supported the case of the prosecution and according to her, when her daughter came to her house she told her that her husband as well as in-law were always demanding the motor cycle and she was threatened to be killed, if the demand of motor cycle will not be fulfilled by her parent. PW 4 is the brother of the deceased Geeta Devi. He has also supported the version of the prosecution case of the demand of motor cycle by the appellant. 6. PW 8 is the doctor, whopproved the postmortem report (Ext. 3). He has stated that on 8.5.1995, he received sealed pocket containing burning remains of deadbody. PW 4 is the brother of the deceased Geeta Devi. He has also supported the version of the prosecution case of the demand of motor cycle by the appellant. 6. PW 8 is the doctor, whopproved the postmortem report (Ext. 3). He has stated that on 8.5.1995, he received sealed pocket containing burning remains of deadbody. He examined and found sacrum and let hip bones, right and left femur, and fire pieces of thoracic vertebrae, which were of female. The age of the deceased was about 18-19 years and he did not found any ante mortem injury. 7. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated on the information of the informant, he came to the burning ghat and having seen him the persons at the burning ghat fled away and he chased these persons and the appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, Mithilesh Rai and Jagdish Rai were arrested. He recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Deep Narain Yadav, which is Ext. 4. He has stated that he seized the burning corps and prepared a seizures list, which is marked as Ext. 2. He has stated that he visited the place of occurrence and thereafter he submitted charge-sheet against these three appellants. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the witness Sanjeev Kumar and Shanti Devi had not stated during the investigation that all the accused-persons used to harass the deceased for demand of motor cycle. 8. The defence has also examined as many as ten witnesses, DW 1 is Sitaram Rai, DW 2 is Shivaji Rai, DW 3 is Shltal Rai, DW 4 is Ramjiwan Rai. DW 5 is Rajendra Prasad, DW 6 is Dr. Anand Kishore, DW 7 is Dr. Harun Rashid, DW 8 is Dr. Ramji Prasad, DW 9 is Patohu of Ramjiwan Rai and DW 10 is Shri Nath Rai. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the First Information Report the allegation of demand of dowry is made out against the appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, only who is the husband of the deceased. It has been further submitted that even the prosecution witnesses before the 10 PW 9 during the investigation have not stated that the appellant Jagdish Rai and Mithlesh Rai use to torture the deceased for demand of dowry. It has been further submitted that even the prosecution witnesses before the 10 PW 9 during the investigation have not stated that the appellant Jagdish Rai and Mithlesh Rai use to torture the deceased for demand of dowry. It has been also submitted that there is no evidence that the two appellants Jagdish Rai and Mithlesh Rai ever assaulted the deceased just before the time of her death. He has relied on a decision of Apex Court reported in PLJR 2000 Vol-III page 668 in the case of Hansraj V/s. The State of Punjab. The ratio laid down in the aforementioned case of Hansraj V/s. State of Punjab, it was held that the demand of dowry was made by the husband. The allegation made against other family members did not find support by the witnesses. It was also held that in all the case in-laws cannot be held to be involved for demand of dowry only on the basis of the implication or acquisition against them without any proof beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. In the present case, it has been alleged that the appellant Awadhesh Kumar demanded the motor cycle during a ceremony of "Khir Khiauni" at the time of marriage itself and thereafter he continued his demand and also deceased was harassed resulting in the death of the deceased Geeta Devi. PW 4 is the brother of the deceased, who visited the place of his sister also stated that the appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav used to beat her sister for dowry demand. The informant PW 5 also stated that when the deceased came from his Sasural she informed him that she was being harassed and tortured by her husband as well as by in-laws for demand of motor cycle and she was also threatened to be killed by them, if the demand was not fulfilled. 11. From the deposition of the witnesses it appears that though there are allegations of harassment against the appellants Jagdish Rai and Mithlesh Rai, also but no specific allegation has been made against them. The mother of the deceased, PW 3 also stated that it was the appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, who used to always demand the dowry and also used to harassed her daughter. The mother of the deceased, PW 3 also stated that it was the appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, who used to always demand the dowry and also used to harassed her daughter. As such it appears that the other relatives of the in laws of the deceased have been roped simply, in order to harass them even though their role of demand of dowry and harassment have not been proved. The informant and his son have named all the relatives of the appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, even though some of them were not living jointly and they had their separate mess and agriculture. 12. From the perusal of the evidence of all other witnesses PWs 2 to 7, it is clear that the appellant and other co-accused were cremating the dead body of the deceased in the morning hours of 10.5.1995 without informing the parents and brother of the deceased. However the informant got information by one Hari Shankar, while he was on his way to school near Ginja temple. On getting such information, he along with his son and one other persons went to his daughter place at about 6.15 a.m. and learnt that the dead body of his daughter were carried to Samshan Ghat. They hurriedly lit the pyre. They simply informed the informant that she died due to snake bite. On information the police came there and most of the persons fled away having seen the police, but the three appellants Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, Mithlesh Yadav and Jagdish Yadav were arrested. The police only could size some portion of burnt of her body, which was sent for postmortem examination. 13. The defence has also examined ten witnesses. Some of the witnesses has been examined to prove the alibi of some of the co-accused persons where the other has been examined to prove that the deceased was suffering from hypertension and other heart disease. From the trend of cross-examination of the prose-cution witnesses and subsequent examination of the defence witnesses, it appears that the defence subsequently came with the story that the deceased died due to heart failure. Initially the informant as well as his son were told that she died due to snake bite. From the trend of cross-examination of the prose-cution witnesses and subsequent examination of the defence witnesses, it appears that the defence subsequently came with the story that the deceased died due to heart failure. Initially the informant as well as his son were told that she died due to snake bite. The contradictory version about the death of the deceased coupled with the conduct of the appellant that they did not informed the parents of the family members of the deceased and tried to burn the dead body hurriedly goes to amply prove that the death of the deceased was not natural. 14. Admittedly the deceased Geeta Devi died only two years of her marriage and she was being harassed at the in-laws place subsequently she died an unnatural death for which no explanation was given by the in-laws. As such the appellant Awadhesh has been rightly found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304/B of the IPC. I do not want to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below under Section 304/B and 201/34 of the IPC, so far this appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav is concerned, his conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is up held. 15. As discussed above, the prosecution could not prove the demand of dowry and harassment and torture against the appellants Jagdish Rai and Mithlesh Rai beyond reasonable doubt and as such they deserve acquittal of the charges under Section 304-B/34, IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the charges under Section 304-B/34, IPC. However, when the police party reached, the persons who had gone to the burning ghat for cremation of dead body of Geeta Devi started fleeing away having seen the police party. The police party after chase arrested these appellants Jagdish Rai and Mithlesh Rai along with Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, thus their involve- ment in disposing of the dead body hurriedly cannot be ruled out and the Court below has rightly found them guilty and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 201/34, IPC for disappearing evidence of, offence committed by appellant Awadhesh Kumar Yadav. 16. In the result, the Cr. Appeal No. 183 of 19991 is dismissed and Cr. Appeal No. 133 is partly allowed. Cri App. 183/99, Dismissed. Cri App. 133/99, Partly allowed.