Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1066 (PAT)

Chandrawati Devi v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-02

SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK

body2002
Judgment SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK, J. 1. The aforesaid two appeals were heard analogous as they have been preferred against the common judgment dated 24.7.2001 rendered by Addl. Sessions Judge X, Saran at Chapra, in Session Trial No. 562/96/413/98. Appellant, Pramesh Prasad @ Prabesh Prasad was convicted under Section 304-B/34, IPC and he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years. He was further convicted under Section 201/34, IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years, both the sentences run concurrently. Rest of the appellants were convicted under Section 304-B/34, IPC as also under Section 201/34, IPC and they were sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and 3 years respectively, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case originated on the fardbeyan of one Deonath Manjhi, chaukidar of Manjhi Police Station, who firstly reported the recovery of dead body of a female lying in a ditch on a particular Brahm Asthan and on his oral information, Police officer of Manjhi Police Station reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan of the chaukidar (exhibit 2). The dead body was naked although it was having bangles on its hand. She was stripped of her hair and the dead body was decomposed and foul smell was emanating from it. On the aforesaid statements of the chaukidar the case was instituted and a formal FIR was drawn up (exhibit 5), and investigation followed, subsequently, charge- sheet was submitted. 3. The appellants had taken the defence of false implication on the basis of suspicion. 4. The prosecution had examined in all 9 witnesses, PW 9 was a formal witness who brought on record the post-mortem report (exhibit 6). PW 8 was the IO of the case. I shall refer to his evidence later in its salient features while discussing the circumstances brought on the record. PW 7 was the sister of Sunita who was allegedly killed by her in-laws family and it was alleged that the dead body which was recovered by the police was that of Sunita who was missing from 7 to 8 days prior to the alleged recovery of the dead body. PW 6 and 5 were seizure list witnesses who did not say that the Police Officer of Manjhi seized any bangle, sari etc. at the PO, although witnesses admitted their signatures on the seizure list. PW 6 and 5 were seizure list witnesses who did not say that the Police Officer of Manjhi seized any bangle, sari etc. at the PO, although witnesses admitted their signatures on the seizure list. These witnesses said that their signatures were obtained by the Police Officer just at his dictate. PW 4 was the sister of Sunita. PW 3 was father of Sunita and PW 2 was mother of Sunita and PW 1 was chaukidar on whose statements the case was instituted. 5. So far the evidence of family members of Sunita is concerned, they had stated in Court that Sunita was married to appellant, Pramesh Prasad @ Prabesh Prasad in the year 1993 and at the time of marriage, articles worth Rs. 15,000/- were given to the bridegroom. Subsequently, on two occasions, Rs. 5,000/- each time were, given to grooms family. However, still there was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- and towards the payment of the same, there was persistent pressure from the family members of Sunita and she used to be tortured and pestered occasionally. 7 to 8 days prior to the alleged recovery of the dead body, father of Sunita had received information from one Sheopujan Mahto of village Chainpur that his daughter was killed by her sasural people of village Chakia. PW 3 Kapildev Sah was living at Patna at the relevant time alongwith his family members where he was intimated by Sheopujan Mahto regarding the death of his daughter. The mother of PW 3 lived at village Chainpur. Thereafter father, mother, brother and sister to whom I have already referred above as PWs came to village Chakia to enquire about Sunita and who learnt that she was killed by her sasural people. Her family members suspected that she was done to death by the accused persons due to non- fulfilment of dowry demand. However, it was surprising. that none of the witnesses except PW 7 said the dead body which was recovered by the chaukidar was shown to her parents family members who identified the dead body to be that of Sunita. PW 7 no doubt said at para 2 in his evidence that his father had identified the so called dead body which was shown to him on 12.9.1995 when he had gone to village Chakia. PW 7 no doubt said at para 2 in his evidence that his father had identified the so called dead body which was shown to him on 12.9.1995 when he had gone to village Chakia. But PW 3 in his examination-in-chief or even in cross-examination did not say that the dead body was shown to him and that he identified it as that of his daughter. In these circumstances, the evidence of chaukidar PW 1, PW 8, IO becomes relevant. PW 1 also failed to say that the dead body which was found by him under the concerned bridge was identified by any body to be that of Sunita. PW 8 IO, said that when he visited the place of occurrence, he enquired about the identity of the dead body in the neighbouring villages and learnt that perhaps it was the dead body of daughter-in law of Chandrawati Devi of village Chakia but the most surprising element of the evidence of PW 8 and his conduct in investigating, the case is that he failed to name the persons who told him that the dead body was that of the daughter-in-law of Chandrawati Devi to whose son admittedly, Sunita was married. Chandrawati Devi was perhaps interrogated by PW 8 when he visited her house and after her interrogation, he brought at the Police Station one female from her house. This female was known as Putul Kumari and she told to the Police Officer that perhaps Sunita was subjected to criminal assault by several persons and after that she was done to death. Police Officer was also told by Chandrawati Devi that daughter- in-law had left her house several days prior to the alleged recovery of the concerned dead body. So, on the basis of the aforesaid statement of Chandrawati Devi, 10 (PW 8) suspected that the recovered dead body was that of Sunita and he prosecuted her sasural people. In this connection, the conduct of the IO appeal to be very much suspect and it appears that he failed to investigate the case on the line as required by the law in such cases. At para 5, he had admitted that he had taken photographs of the dead body and thereafter he sent it for post-mortem to the hospital. In this connection, the conduct of the IO appeal to be very much suspect and it appears that he failed to investigate the case on the line as required by the law in such cases. At para 5, he had admitted that he had taken photographs of the dead body and thereafter he sent it for post-mortem to the hospital. But he failed to say that he had shown this photograph to the paternal family members of Sunita and that family members identified that this was the photograph of Sunita. Admittedly, IO failed to discharge his primary duty as required to establish that the dead body was that of missing Sunita. The father, brother, sister and mother who were examined in Court also failed to say that the dead body was shown to them and that they found it to be the dead body of Sunita. The evidence of PWs further indicates that both the hands of Sunrta were tattooed indicating the name of herself and her husband. But there is no evidence on the record that paternal family members of Sunita were confronted with the dead body and they had identified it to be that of Sunita at least by tatoo marks on her hand. In such circumstance, it could not be established by the evidence on record that the recovered dead body was, of course, that of Sunita. So, the prosecution of the appellants was based on suspicion to the effect that since Sunita was found missing the recovered dead body must be that of Sunita. In this connection, I am constrained to remark that this is a case of suspicious circumstances, and insufficient evidence and it is regrettable that Police Officer concerned conducted investigation in the most slip-shod manner and left vital loopholes in order to destroy the prosecution case and inspite of such limping evidence, submitted charge-sheet, just to wash his hands clean and left everything to the Court to take all the blame for any order of acquittal which may be passed in such a weak case. Further, I am tempted to observe that the police spoils many a good case by perfunctory investigation and this case is one of such cases. Further, I am tempted to observe that the police spoils many a good case by perfunctory investigation and this case is one of such cases. Whatever may be the reality of the case, this Court was posted with the material which created nothing but suspicion regarding the alleged liability of sasural people of Sunita in respect of her tracelessness and her subsequent murder etc. if at all she was murdered. No body can be convicted on the basis of suspicion however, strong that may be. The post mortem was done on the alleged dead body which was highly decomposed, muscles and flesh on the face were eaten away and were absent. Other parts of the body also did not contain flesh, all was skeleton. The post-mortem report (exhibit 6) shows that the doctor failed to give any cause of death. In such circumstances, the IO had to fix identity of the dead body by some other circumstantial evidence which he failed to obtain during his investigation and he had simply banked on suspicion against the appellants. The appellants had examined two witnesses who said that they had seen the dead body recovered by the police and it was not the dead body of Sunita and they were villagers of the appellants. 6. The IO (PW 8) said further in his evidence that none of the PWs had told him that there was demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the appellants and due to non-fulfilment of the same, Sunita was tortured. The attention of PWs was drawn to this discrepancy in the evidence in Court, but they said that they had made such statements before the IO and yet the IO failed to corroborate their statement. In such circumstances, it is not understandable why he submitted charge-sheet when he was not convinced that the dead body was that of Sunita. Moreover, it was pointed out that the IO had failed in his duty to fix the identity of the dead body by unimpeachable, credible materials, and the investigation was faulty, tardy and betrayed the shackness and inefficiency of the IO. 7. In the result, there is no alternative but to allow these appeals. They are, accordingly allowed and the order of conviction and sentence are set aside. Accused-appellants are acquitted and discharged from the liability of bail bond. 7. In the result, there is no alternative but to allow these appeals. They are, accordingly allowed and the order of conviction and sentence are set aside. Accused-appellants are acquitted and discharged from the liability of bail bond. The appellant in custody shall be set at liberty immediately if not wanted in any other case.