Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1139 (PAT)

Ramayan Rai v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-25

B.N.P.SINGH

body2002
Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Though the appellants along with Ramdeya Devi were charged for the offence publishable u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, they were acquitted of the charges. The trial Court, however, found appellants guilty under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years which is impugned in this appeal. 2. The factual matrix appearing from the earliest version of Baliram Rai PW 3 and also narrations made by the witnesses at trial had been that the said Baliram Rai was informed by his son Brahmadeo Rai who had gone to flour mill, that Raj Kumari Devi, his sister had been killed, pursuant to which, Baliram Rai along with others proceeded for village. However, he met the appellants and others in the midway who were carrying the dead-body of Raj Kumari Devi for cremation and it was alleged that when they asked them about cause of death of the deceased, they stated it due to stomach pain. However, when the said Baliram Rai insisted for seeing the dead-body they left it and made good their escape. Baliram Rai however, noticed the sign of strangulation on the dead-body of the deceased and with these accusations prosecution was launched against the appellants and others. During investigation, the police recorded statement of a number of witnesses, got autopsy held over the dead-body, and on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet against the appellants and Ramdeya Devi. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether five witnesses who were brother and father of the deceased, a formal witness and also two other witnesses who were tendered by the State. 3. The defence of the appellants before the Court below and this Court had been the denial of allegations and their false implication, due to death of Raj Kumari Devi in laws house. The trial Court however, negativing the plea of innocence of the appellants, while acquitting the appellants for the charges under sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded finding of guilt under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 4. Three fold contentions were raised at bar on behalf of the appellants and before I give bestowed consideration on them, it would be apt to discuss the evidence available on the record. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded finding of guilt under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them in the manner stated above. 4. Three fold contentions were raised at bar on behalf of the appellants and before I give bestowed consideration on them, it would be apt to discuss the evidence available on the record. Since narrations made by the witnesses have been broadly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below that is being discussed with brevity. 5. Kamla Devi PW 1 and Bimal Kumari PW 2 had nothing to say, as they were tendered by the State Md. Kalimuddin PW 5 was a formal witness who brought on the record, certain part of police case dirary, inquest report and also the post-mortem report. The object for placing the post-mortem and the inquest report on the record through Advocates clerk was shown to be non-availability of the doctor. The evidence of Brahmadeo Raj PW 4 was confined to receipt of information about death of his sister, which he, subsequently passed over to his father. The witness would further state that his father proceeded for in-laws house of the deceased and when he happened to meet appellants, they, leaving the dead-body made good their escape. The witness would also state about apprehension of Ramayan Rai. Baliram Rai PW 3, would reiterate the narration made in the First Information Report about receipt of informant with regard to death of Raj Kumari Devi from his son pursuant to which he proceeded for in-laws house of Raj Kumari Devi and after he noticed the appellants and others along with the dead-body of the deceased, they left the dead-body making good their escape and the noticed sign of strangulation on the dead-body, This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 6. Contention raised at bar behalf of the appellants was that even though the finding of the doctor who held autposy over the dead-body was not legally brought on the record to persuade one to believe that the death of the deceased was in the circumstances, other than normal, the trial Court erroneously came to conclusion about appellants disappearing the evidence for screening themselves from the rigours of punishment. The contentions are raised that unless good evidence were placed on the record to suggest about unnatural death of the deceased within the knowledge of the appellants, the guilt u/s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code could not be fastened against them and the last agreement was that even though there was no good evidence about non-availability of the doctor for which post-mortem report could be looked into by the Court, adverse conclusion was drawn by the trial Court. 7. As has been stated earlier, those who claim to be material witnesses were PWs. 3 and 4 and rightly PW 4 had no other source of informant about unnatural death of the deceased except his knowledge, for which, no source was disclosed by him. Similar was the case with the evidence of Baliram Rai PW 3, though this witness states about sign of strangulation over the dead-body of the deceased and for which appellants, being apprehensive, left the dead-body and made their good escape, rightly there has been no finding of the doctor about death of the deceased by strangulation which could conclusively suggest that the death of the deceased was in the circumstances other than natural and which could have persuaded the appellants to make their good escape. Reliance can be placed on a decision of the Apex Court of the land, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1083 (Bhupendra Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of UP) in which though evidence showed that a person had died and his dead-body was found in drain and accused had also taken part in disposal of the dead-body no evidence was there about killing and in these circumstances, the observations were made by the Apex Court that accused cannot be convicted even u/s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . 8. Regard being had to the infirmity that has crept in the prosecution case. I find that the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court was not sustaiable in law. The appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds.