Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1269 (PAT)

Raj Kishore Shah v. State Of Bihar

2003-12-09

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2003
Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Secs. 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the Code") and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Harishankar Sah of Village Belghati, P.S. Turkaulia, District/East Champaran of 29.7.2000 at about 2.30 p.m. at Village/Matiaria Rai English Police Station Harsidhi gave a fard beyan before the Sub Inspector, Jogendar Rajak of the Harisidhi P.S. that his daughter Naina Devi, aged about 25 years, was married with Raj Kishore Sah about 5 vesars before. His daughter gave birth to a female child, who was aged about 2-3 years. It was been stated that he fulfiled dowry demand as per his capacity but after the marriage, husband (Raj Kishore Sah), Dewar (Rajendar Sah) and mother-in-law (Punkali Devi) of the deceased (daughter) started demanding Television and Cycle as dowry and they were pressing her daughter to bring the same from her parents, otherwise she was threatened to be sent back to her Maike. It has been stated that in the month of Chait his son-in-law, Raj Kishore Sah sent his daughter, the deceased to his house with her two children where she remained for three months. Only 16/17 days prior to occurrence his son-in-law Raj Kishore Sah came to his house where the informant, father of the deceased assured Raj Kishore Sah that he will fulfil the dowry demand. On that assurance his son-in-law had taken his daughter to her Sasural along with two children. He further stated that on 27.9.2000 at about 1 pm. in the noon he got the information that the husband, Dewar (brother-in-law) and the mother-in-law have burnt his daughter Naina Devi, aged about 25 years, and took her to the Burning Ghat to cremate her even though she was alive. According to him, chaukidar of Village intercepted the accused persons an on objection of Chaukidar, the accused persons took back the deceased to their house where she died. He then with his brother went to village along with village people of the said village Matiaria Raje English and found the dead body of his daughter who had burnt injuries. In the/meantime, police party also came where he gave his statement. He then with his brother went to village along with village people of the said village Matiaria Raje English and found the dead body of his daughter who had burnt injuries. In the/meantime, police party also came where he gave his statement. According to him, accused Raj Kishore Sah, (the husband), Rajendar Sah (Dewar) and Punkali Devi (mother-in-law) had caused the death of his daughter by burning her to death for dowry. The police started investigation and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Secs. 304B/34, 498A/34 and also 201/34 of the Code. On the basis of charge sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of session for trial. Ultimately, the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether 16 witnesses. PW 1 Lachminia Devi, PW 2 Gaya Raut, PW 3 Rajendar Kumar, PW 4 Ramchandar Prasad, PW 5 Md. Ishalam Ansari, PW 6 Parachia Devi, PW 7 Sachchi Devi, mother of the deceased, PW 8 Harilal Sah, uncle of the deceased, PW 9 Prema Devi, PW 10 Harishankar Sah, the informant and father of the deceased, PW 13 Vidyawati Devi, PW 14 Bhadar Sah have turned hostile. PW 11 Jawahar Lal Sah is the formal witness who has verified the handwriting and signature of officer-in-charge, exhibit-2, PW 12 is Dr. Niranjan Prasad Nayak, who has conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased. PW 15 is the chaukidar Ramchatri Rai, PW 16 is Bipin Bihari Prasad, who is formal witness and has verified the handwriting and signature of Jogendar Rajak, officer-in-charge, Harsidhi P.S. (exhibit-3). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the witnesses, except PW 15, Chaukidar, have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile, Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court should have considered that none of the witnesses had said that the deceased was killed by the appellants for demand of dowry and without considering the same convicted the appellant under Secs. 304B and 498A of the Code. It has been further submitted that the learned Court below did not consider that the deceased died an accidental death while cooking food and a compromise petition had also been filed under that circumstances. 304B and 498A of the Code. It has been further submitted that the learned Court below did not consider that the deceased died an accidental death while cooking food and a compromise petition had also been filed under that circumstances. According to him, the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police. Though the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses on the factum of death of deceased our of which only one witness has supported the prosecution case. PW 12, the doctor, who held the post mortem examination of the deceased, found that the deceased was having pregnancy of six months and she died of extensive burning of whole body including the back and hairs of her head. IO has not been examined in this case. All the prosecution witnesses, who turned hostile, during cross-examination had been given suggestion that they had earlier given statement supporting the case of the prosecution that the deceased was harassed by in-laws and also by her husband for non fulfilment of demand of dowry. Suggestion was also given to these witnesses that earlier they had also stated during investigation that the deceased was done to death by in laws and the dead body was disposed of hurriedly and now they are not supporting the prosecution case so as to favour the accused persons. From the evidence of PW 8, it is evident that the deceased was married with the appellant about 6/7 years before from the date of his deposition in the month of May, 2001 i.e. within seven years of the date of occurrence, which is in the month of July, 2000. From the evidence of PW 12 the doctor as well as PW 15 the chaukidar it appears that the deceased died due to extensive burn injuries and she was being carried to be cremated hurriedly while she was still alive. PW 15 has also stated in his deposition that none of the family members of the appellant informed him that the deceased had caught fire while cooking food. From the post mortem report, it appears that the deceased was having extensive burn injuries also on her back which suggests that no body tried to extinguish the fire and she was allowed to burn and thus she had extensive burn injuries. From the post mortem report, it appears that the deceased was having extensive burn injuries also on her back which suggests that no body tried to extinguish the fire and she was allowed to burn and thus she had extensive burn injuries. As such, it does not appear that it was an accidental fire by which the deceased died. On the point of demand of dowry soon before her unnatural death all the witnesses who supported this during investigation turned hostile in course of their examination in the Court. 5. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, sec. 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is attracted in which the burden lies on the appellant to prove whether the deceased died of natural death or not. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, so adduced, rightly came to the conclusion and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Secs. 304B and 498A of the Code. 6. I see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge, Accordingly, the conviction and sentence, passed by the Court below is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.