Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 175 (PAT)

Gulab Chand Mehta v. State Of Bihar

2001-02-22

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2001
Judgment 1. All the five appellants have been convicted under Ss. 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under both counts. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the sister of the first informant, Suni Kumar Singh (P.W. 9), aged about 20 years was married with appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta, two years prior to the date of institution of the case. It has been alleged that on the occasion of the marriage he had given a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 and other golden and silver ornaments to appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta but he had demanded a Rajdoot motor cycle at the time of marriage. It has been further alleged that appellant-Gulab Chand Mehta demanded the motor cycle on being persuaded by the other appellants. The father of the first informant had agreed to give the motor cycle to the appellant but due to some inability the demand of motor cycle made by appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta could not be fulfilled. It has been further alleged that two months prior to the date of lodging of the F.I.R. the second marriage (Gauna) of the sister of the informant was performed and his sister had gone to her in-laws house in village Telha along with her husband. It has been further alleged that the informant and his two cousins and two sons of his Foofa had also gone to village Telha Rahi with his sister. On that very night the appellants subjected her to ill-treatment due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry in the shape of motor cycle. His sister kept weepings for the whole night and she did not take her meal and the next morning Renu Devi asked the informant and others to go back to her father with a request to fulfil the demand of the appellants. His sister kept weepings for the whole night and she did not take her meal and the next morning Renu Devi asked the informant and others to go back to her father with a request to fulfil the demand of the appellants. Due to poverty the informant started managing the amount for the purchase of motor cycle by selling his cattle but all of a sudden in the night of 18-5-1996 at about 8 or 9 p.m. appellant-Laxman Mehta, Savitri Devi, Gulab Chand Mehta, Nirmala Devi and Anirudh Mehta assaulted the victim girl, Renu Devi, by means "Cholani" and "Pidhiya," fists and kicks taking the plea that she had not cooked the meal and after the alleged assault they removed her from the house in unconscious condition with a view to kill her. It has been further alleged that the informant got such information on 25-5-1996 by one person of village Telha Rahi. Hearing such information, the informant along with some of his villagers visited the house of his sisters in-laws in the evening of 25-5-1996 but none of the persons were present in the house and he could not see his sister, Renu Devi, in the house. Then he made hectic search of his sister and then in the evening of 30-5-1996 he visited the Chousa police station to lodge the information but the Officer-in-charge was not present in the police station. On 31-5-1996 he lodged the written report in the Chousa police station alleging therein the aforesaid facts. On the basis of the written report of the first informant (Ext. 1) a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and after completion of investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet. Thereafter cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The case of the defence is that Ranu Devi had died a natural death and the informants had been informed about the death of Renu Devi and the informant and his several villagers had participated in the Saradh ceremony of Renu Devi and the father of the informant had also participated in the Saradh. However, he wanted to get back the ornaments of Renu Devi and in order to pressurise the appellants the informant, his father and his cousin conspired together and falsely implicated the appellants. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 11 witnesses. However, he wanted to get back the ornaments of Renu Devi and in order to pressurise the appellants the informant, his father and his cousin conspired together and falsely implicated the appellants. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 11 witnesses. P.W. 1, Ambika Mandal and P.W. 2, Banarshi Mehta, have been declared hostile. P.W. 3 is Binod Singh. P.W. 4 is Rajendra Singh. P.W. 5 is Narain Singh. P.W. 6 is Dinesh Singh. P.W. 7 is Arjun Yadav. P.W. 8 is Narendra Kumar Singh. P.W. 9 is Sunil Kumar Singh. P.W. 10 is Ram Anugrah Singh. P.W. 11 is Ram Chanchal Sharma. 5. P.W. 9 is the informant and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution as narrated in the F.I.R. He has stated that his sister, Renu Kumari, was married with appellant, Gulab Chand Mohta and on the occasion of the marriage he had given a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 to appellants, Laxman Mehta and Gulab Chand Mehta in the form of gift and he had also given ornaments of gold worth Rs. 10,000.00 but Gulab Chand Mehta and his father had demanded a motor cycle at the time of the marriage. He has further stated that his father had agreed that he would give the motor cycle later on. He has further stated that the occurrence took place on 18-5-1996 and two months prior to the date of alleged occurrence the second marriage of his sister, Renu Devi had been performed and appellant, Gulab Chand Metha, Laxman Mehta and his relatives had visited the house of the informant on the occasion of the second marriage of his sister. At the time of second marriage also appellant Gulab Chand Mehta and Laxman Mehta had demanded a motor cycle. He has further stated that after the second marriage his sister went to her in-laws house and he along with his two cousins (Fufera Bhai) had also accompanied his sister as Lokania and went to village Telha in the house of the appellants. He has further stated that the appellants made a querry from Renu Devi as to why her father did not give the motor cycle and they also asserted that if he failed to give the mother cycle, she would face the consequences. He has further stated that the appellants made a querry from Renu Devi as to why her father did not give the motor cycle and they also asserted that if he failed to give the mother cycle, she would face the consequences. He has further stated that next morning his sister asked him to go back and to suggest his father to give the motor cycle otherwise they would not allow her to live in peace. He has further stated that the aforesaid accused persons demanded the motor cycle in his presence and also in presence of other persons who had visited the house of the appellants as Lokania. Thereafter he came back to his house and told the entire story to his father. Thereafter his father started selling the cattle with a view to give the motor cycle to the appellants. On 25-5-1996 one person belonging to village Telharahi came to the house of the first informant and stated that the aforesaid appellants committed murder of his sister and disposed of her dead-body. He has further stated that the dead-body of his sister could not be found till the date of his deposition nor any Saradh had been done. Thereafter he visited the village Telha and went in the house of his brother-in-law but neither his sister nor the appellants were available in the house. The house of the appellants was locked. He has further stated that he made a search of his sister and all the appellants but he could not be able to find them. On 30-5-1996 he visited the Chousa police station but the Officer-in-charge was not available in the police station. Again he visited the police station on 31-5-1996 and gave a written report to the Officer-in-charge. The other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution as stated in the written report. 6. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that he recorded the statement of Narendra Kumar Singh and he followed the instructions as given in the supervision note of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. He has further submitted that after completion of the investigation he submitted charge-sheet. He has proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3). 7. P.W. 11 is the another Investigating Officer who had conducted investigation in this case. He inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He has further submitted that after completion of the investigation he submitted charge-sheet. He has proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3). 7. P.W. 11 is the another Investigating Officer who had conducted investigation in this case. He inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He has further stated that he arrested appellant-Laxman Mehta and raided the house of the appellants with a view to arrest the other appellants but the appellants were found absconding. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. On this point the learned Court below has elaborately discussed that the informant got the information of death of his sister on 25th May, 1996 by a co-villager of her in-laws. In the most natural course the informant when he got it ascertained that his sister was actually done to death he went to the police station on 30-5-1996 but Officer-in-charge was not available, finally on 31st May, 1996 he gave a written report to the Officer-in-charge, Chausa Police Station. As such the delay in lodging the F. I. R. has been fully explained. It has been further submitted that the Court below has discarded the testimony of P. W. 8 only on the ground I. O. (P. W. 11) has stated that he did not disclose the details of the occurrence during the investigation. However, from his deposition it appears that during investigation he has supported the fact that he learnt about the death of the deceased, Renu Devi, and his testimony has been fully corroborated by other witnesses. As such I do not find any reason to discard his testimony. 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased died and the information of her death was not given to her parents. Even there is no evidence whether the Saradh Ceremony after her death was held or not and any information regarding this was sent to her parents or not. Even the defence did not choose to examine any witness on this point neither any suggestion was put forth to the prosecution witness by the defence. It was duty of the in-law to have informed the parents of the deceased in a normal manner by sending some one about holding of the formalities as required after death of a person. Even the defence did not choose to examine any witness on this point neither any suggestion was put forth to the prosecution witness by the defence. It was duty of the in-law to have informed the parents of the deceased in a normal manner by sending some one about holding of the formalities as required after death of a person. In absence of such conduct and circumstances as above it leads to the presumption that the deceased, Renu Devi, died a unnatural death only within two years of her marrige and her body was disposed of hurriedly and stealthily. It has also been proved that there was demand of dowry and for this demand she was used to be harassed and tortured. However, from the careful perusal of the F. I. R. and records it appears that demand of dowry was only from the appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta, the husband of the deceased. As such any harassment and illtreatment given to the deceased would be considered at the instance of appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta. A husband is expected to safeguard the interest of his wife in the family and in case of neglect, harassment and torture it is husband who is solely reponsible for this Act. The Apex Court has laid down a ratio in the case of Kans Raj V/s. State of Punjab (2000 (3) PLJR (SC) 68 : (2000 Cri LJ 2993) that it is enough to prove the guilt of an accused-husband/in-laws of dowry death if the words spoken by the deceased have reference to any circumstances which has connection with any of the transactions which ended up in the death of the deceased. It has also been held by the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh V/s. State of Haryana, 1998 Cri LJ 4019 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2628 ) in which it was considered that in a case under Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code the accused persons are required to come out with a probable explanation as to how the deceased died in their house. Certainly in this case no explanation has been put forth by the appellants as to how the deceased died who was at their residence when last seen by informant. Certainly in this case no explanation has been put forth by the appellants as to how the deceased died who was at their residence when last seen by informant. It has also been proved that the deceased had told her brother that if demand of motor cycle is not fulfilled the appellant may not allow her to live in peace and she died subsequently. 10. In view of the discussions above the case punishable under Sec. 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. However, other two appellants, namely, Nirmala Devi and Anirudh Mehta who have also been made accused under the aforesaid sections but from the records it apperas that they belonged to other village and there is no positive evidence to prove their presence in the house of the appellant on the date of the occurrence. As such their involvement in the offence become doubtful and improbable and they deserve benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Since allegation against the appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta, has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and thus he has been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Secs. 304-B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As such conviction and sentence passed by the Court below against the appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta, is upheld. 11. So far appellants, Laxman Mehta and Savitri Devi are concerned it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant, Laxman Mehta is aged about 62 years old and appellant, Savitri Devi, is aged about 57 years old, therefore, considering their old age some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to them. 12. Keeping in view the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants, Laxman Mehta and Savitri Devi and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, it is expedient in the interest of justice that if the sentence of these two appellants, namely, Laxman Mehta and Savitri Devi, are reduced from 7 years to four years. 13. 13. In the result, appeal of appellant, Gulab Chand Mehta, is dismissed; appeal of appellants, namely, Nirmala Devi and Anirudh Mehta, is allowed and appeal of appellants, Laxman Mehta and Savitri Devi is dismissed with the modification in the sentence. Order accordingly.