Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1275 (PAT)

Vijoy Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2006-12-19

L.P.SINGH

body2006
Judgment L.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rl for three years. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant is that his daughter Rita Devi was married to the accused Vijoy Kumar Jha son of Nageshwar Jha of village Boraj, P.S. Hathauri, District-Samastipur, nine years ago. It has been submitted that she had no issue and the accused persons were always demanding cycle, watch, radio and money from the informant. Due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand, his daughter was being assaulted by the accused. The further case of prosecution is that the informant gave Rs. 900.00 to the accused Vijoy Kumar Jha for purchasing cycle and sent his daughter alongwith the accused to her Sasural at Boraj. It has further been submitted that 5 to 6 days before the occurrence, father-in-law of his daughter Nageshwar Jha came at the house of the informant and told him that his daughter was pregnant, so she should be brought to his house for proper care as she was harassed by his son Vijoy Kumar Jha and his mother. On 28.6.88 at 9 A.M. a person of village Rajmani who had relation in village Boraj, came at the house of the informant and told him that his daughter was burnt last night and perhaps she was taken away to Baheri or Darbhanga for treatment. On this information the informant proceeded to vilfage Boraj and came to know about the occurrence from villagers Jogendra Jha, Master Markandey Jha, Murlidhar Jha, Raghunath Jha and many others of Boraj village. He was informed that the accused Vijoy Kumar Jha and his mother Sumitra Devi burnt his daughter by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body in the last night at 12 Oclock. He also learnt from them that Deokant Jha a teacher of Boraj village had also his hand in the alleged occurrence. The informant returned to his village and went to Darbhanga, D.M.C.H. alongwith his wife. He came to know there that the Police had come and taken down the statements of the inmates of the accused in which it was stated that in course of cooking food lamp fell on the head of the victim and she received burnt injuries. On the advice of some people he went at Betta Chowk and gave the statement. He came to know there that the Police had come and taken down the statements of the inmates of the accused in which it was stated that in course of cooking food lamp fell on the head of the victim and she received burnt injuries. On the advice of some people he went at Betta Chowk and gave the statement. His fardbeyan was recorded by S.I. Kamruddin, Officer-in-Charge of Betta O.P on 28.6.88 at 18 hours at Betta O.P The informant alleged that his daughter Rita Devi was burnt to death by sprinkling kerosene oil by the appellant and his mother Sumitra Devi for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. He has further alleged that the inmates of the accused gave false statement about the occurrence before Betta Police. The fardbeyan of the informant was forwarded to Hathauri P.S., District-Samastipur for necessary action. On the basis of his fardbeyan Hathauri P.S. registered Case No. 37/88 under sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. On basis of which investigation was done and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Accordingly, the learned S.D.J.M., Rosera took cognizance of the offence on 20.3.90. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has falsely been implicated in this Case. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether six witnesses. 5. P.W. 1 is Ramakant Jha, the informant and father of the deceased Rita Devi, RW. 2 is Lakshmi Devi, mother of the deceased, P.W. 3 is Amarnath Jha. He has been declared hostile. P.W. 4 is Rampadarath Jha. He has been tendered. P.W. 5 is Dr. Atul Kumar Mallik and P.W. 6 Shivjee Prasad Singh is the I.O. of this Case. 6. P.W. 1 Ramakant Jha, the informant and father of the deceased Rita Devi has stated that his daughter was married with Vijoy Kumar Jha in the year 1979 according to Hindu rites. She went to her matrimonial house in 1982. She stayed there for about 1 to 2 months. Thereafter the in-laws took her ear-ring and assaulted and drove her out. It has been stated that his son-in-law Vijoy Kumar Jha and his mother Sumitra Devi assaulted and drove her out. Thereafter he went to her Sasural to know the actual position of the situation. She stayed there for about 1 to 2 months. Thereafter the in-laws took her ear-ring and assaulted and drove her out. It has been stated that his son-in-law Vijoy Kumar Jha and his mother Sumitra Devi assaulted and drove her out. Thereafter he went to her Sasural to know the actual position of the situation. The accused persons told him about the non-fulfilment of the dowry demand of cycle, radio and watch. On assurance, the accused came to his house for Rs. 1100.00 and he gave Rs. 1100.00 to the accused for purchasing cycle after mortgaging his land and he sent back his daughter alongwith his son-in-law. According to him his son-in-law again came to his house and demanded radio. On assurance by the informant that he would also give the remaining dowry demand, the accused returned back. Just five days prior to the occurrence his Samadhi, Nageshwar Jha came at his house and told him that his daughter was carrying pregnancy so she should be brought at his house for better care. He has further stated that on 28.6.88 at 9 A.M. one Mushahar came to his house and informed him about the murder of his daughter. On this information he went to village Boraj and he was informed there from the villagers Yogendra Jha, Raghubansh Jha, Damodar Jha and Bachchu Mishra that in the night of occurrence his son-in-law and his mother burnt his daughter after sprinkling kerosene oil on her body. He went to Darbhanga Hospital and learnt about the death of his daughter in the hospital. He also came to know that her dead body has been sent for post mortem examination. Thereafter he went at Betta Out Post and gave his fardbeyan and signed over it. His wife also put her L.T.I, over it. His wife also identified the cloths of the deceased Rita Devi. He has further stated that his daughter used to tell him and his wife about the torture and harassment by her in-laws. According to him, earlier also he lodged the case about the torture and harassment of his daughter by her in-laws but the same was compromised at the instance of the Officer-in-Charge. In his cross-examination he has stated that there is no eye witness of the torture and harassment caused to his daughter by her in-laws. 7. P.W. 2 Lakshmi Devi is the mother of the deceased. In his cross-examination he has stated that there is no eye witness of the torture and harassment caused to his daughter by her in-laws. 7. P.W. 2 Lakshmi Devi is the mother of the deceased. She has fully supported the version of the informant as stated in his fardbeyan and has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 Ramakant Jha. 8. P.W. 3 Amarnath Jha has been declared hostile. 9. P.W. 4 Rampadarath Jha has been tendered. 10. P.W. 5 Dr. Atul Kumar Mallik has stated that he performed the post mortem examination of Rita Devi at 2 P.M. on 28.6.88. On post mortem examination he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- 1.. Extensive dermo epiderimal-burn was present on both lower limbs, abdomen, chest, back, both upper limbs, neck and face. The base was red and inflamed. The hairs of head were found partially burnt. All abdominal viscera, both lungs, brain and its meninges were found conjested. According to opinion of the Doctor, the above noted injuries were ante mortem, grievous and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature and caused by flames of fire. In his opinion the above injuries were possible by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting fire to her. The cause of death was shock due to burn injuries. The time elapsed since death was assessed to be within 4 to 8 hours from the time of post mortem examination. 11. P.W. 6 Shivjee Prasad Singh is the I.O. of this Case. According to him, on 1.7.88 he was posted at Hathauri Police Station as Officer-in-Charge. On that day he received the fardbeyan in the pen and signature of Md. Kalimuddin, Officer-in-charge of Betta O.P. Laheriasarai, Darbhanga (Ext. 2). He has also proved his endorsement on the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) and on that basis a formal F.I.R. was lodged (Ext. 4). He has stated that he started investigation and visited the place of occurrence. He felt the smell of kerosene oil on the place of occurrence. The kitchen room, floor, wall and Waranda were found cleaned. He has given full description of the place of occurrence. According to him, he received post mortem report and inquest report from Betta O.P. He has proved the inquest report in the pen and signature of S.K. Sah, A.S.I, of Betta O.P. (Ext. 5). The kitchen room, floor, wall and Waranda were found cleaned. He has given full description of the place of occurrence. According to him, he received post mortem report and inquest report from Betta O.P. He has proved the inquest report in the pen and signature of S.K. Sah, A.S.I, of Betta O.P. (Ext. 5). He has stated that he recorded the fardbeyan of the witnesses and started to search the accused. He was found the accused absconding. He recorded the statement of the informant, Ramakant Jha and his wife Lakshmi Devi. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove charge under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. It has further been submitted that there has been no cogent evidence on records either direct or circumstantial to show that the victim girl Rita Devi was ever tortured or harassed by the accused. As such the learned Court below should have acquitted the appellant of the charge under sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It has also been submitted that the finding of the learned trial Court that victim Rita Devi was tortured, harassed and burnt to death by the accused for non-fulfilment of dowry demand has not been proved against the appellant. The prosecution case is inherently improbable, absurd and the prosecution evidence has completely failed to establish any of the circumstances against the appellant and his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Court below is otherwise bad in law and fit to be set aside. 13. The submission of learned counsel that there has been no cogent reason to convict the appellant under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code as there is no evidence of torture and harassment and also the submission that when no case under Sec.304B of the Indian Penal Code was found against the appellant, as such he should also not have been convicted under sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who are father and mother of the deceased, Rita Devi there is allegation of torture and they are the competent and natural witnesses. It appears that from the beginning of her marriage she was used to torture by her husband and mother-in-law as per evidence of RW. 2. However, from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who are father and mother of the deceased, Rita Devi there is allegation of torture and they are the competent and natural witnesses. It appears that from the beginning of her marriage she was used to torture by her husband and mother-in-law as per evidence of RW. 2. They used to demand cycle, watch and radio in dowry for which they used to harass the victim. RW. 2 the mother of the deceased Rita Devi has also stated in her deposition that appellant Vijoy Kumar Jha came and took Rs. 900.00 for purchasing cycle which they gave after mortgaging their land. Before the death of her daughter the father-in-law of the deceased Nageshwar Jha came to the house of informant and advised them for bringing their daughter and thereafter they heard the news of her killing. This shows that she was not being properly treated by her in-laws and she was used to be harassed and tortured. Thus on appreciation of the evidence, the learned Court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the appellant is hereby upheld. 14. However, coming to the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the appellant has remained in custody about two years and ten months, as such it requires consideration on the point of sentence. More so the sentence awarded to the appellant is R.I. for three years only. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence awarded by the Court below is reduced to the period he has already undergone in jail custody. 16. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal is allowed.