Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 514 (JHR)

Khiru Rai v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2006-05-02

A.R.PRASAD, N.DHINAKAR

body2006
Judgment By Court.-The appellant. Khiru Rai, was charged and convicted under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and the appeal is gainst the said conviction and sentence. 2. The deceased, Sita Devi, is the wife of the appellant, Khiru Rai and she is the daughter of PW 6, Balram Rai. PW 5, Mani Rai is the father of P.W. 6. The deceased was given in marriage to the appellant on 10.5.1996 and after the marriage she was residing in the house of the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment after asking her to get a motorcycle from her parents and that P.W. 6 could not meet the said demand made by the appellant. On 29.11.1996 the deceased died on account of the burn injuries. The Investigating Officer, P.W., 8, was informed about the death of Sita Devi, who after conducting inquest over the dead body, sent it for post mortem. 3. On receipt of the dead body, Dr. Shailendra Kumar, P.W. 7, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sita Devi and found dermo and epidermal ante mortem injuries all over the body. The doctor issued Ext. 2, the post mortem report, with his opinion that death is on account of shock as a result of extensive burn injuries. 4. After the body was subjected to post mortem, it was brought by the appellant and buried in his village. In the meantime, on getting information about the death of his daughter, P.W., 6 also reached the village and came to know that the dead body was already subjected to post mortem and buried. According to the prosecution, he got the dead body exhumed and took it to his village where she was cremated. The further case of the prosecution is that P.W., 6 went to the Hariharpur Police Station on 30.11.1996 and gave statement, Ext. 1, on the basis of which an F.I.R. under Ext. 5 was registered at Topchanchi Police Station. Jai Ram Singh, P.W. 8, took up investigating and later a final report was filed against the appellant by his sJccessor-in-office. The appellant, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances. 5. Mr. 1, on the basis of which an F.I.R. under Ext. 5 was registered at Topchanchi Police Station. Jai Ram Singh, P.W. 8, took up investigating and later a final report was filed against the appellant by his sJccessor-in-office. The appellant, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances. 5. Mr. B.S. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the absence of acceptable evidence that the deceased died on account of torture and ill-treatment meted by the appellant, the trial court was not justified in finding the appellant's guilty. He submits that the evidence of P.W. 8, Jai Ram Singh, who initially took up investigation after the death of Sita Devi indicates that the deceased committed suicide in her room, which was bolted from inside and therefore the case of the prosecution that the deceased could have been murdered, cannot be true. 6. We have heard Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the• State, on the above contention. 7. It is not in dispute that the deceased is the wife of the appellant, as, according to the prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, she was given in marriage to the appellant on 10.5.1996. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was residing in the house of the appellant and that she died on account of the burn injury. 8. The only question that is to be decided by us is whether the appellant subjected his wife, Sita Devi to cruelty after asking for motorcycle. We have perused the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, who are the grandfather and father of the deceased, Sita Devi respectively. They have stated that the deceased was complaining to them that the appellant is making illegal demand and iii-treating her. The prosecution did not produce any other material to support the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6. Except the oral testimony of these two witnesses, there is no evidence to show that the appellant was making illegal demands. In fact, we do not accept the evidence of PW. 6 on his face value as we find that he had come out with improved version before the trial court and did not give the true state of affairs while giving evidence. In fact, we do not accept the evidence of PW. 6 on his face value as we find that he had come out with improved version before the trial court and did not give the true state of affairs while giving evidence. He has admitted that he did not specifically say to the Investigating Officer when his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the dead body was exhumed from the place where she was buried in the village of the appellant and that it was cremated later in his village. He has no explanation to offer that as to why he had come out with such a statement that the dead body was exhumed and later cremated in his village. P.W 8 also did not say that he exhumed the body at the request of P.W 6 and that the body was taken to the village of P.W 6 for cremation. It could also be seen from the evidence of P.W 6 that the deceased before her marriage was living with more comforts in her parental house, as the house of P.W 6 was a pucca built house, whereas the deceased had to live in the house of the appellant, which was constructed with earth having tiled roof. The house was also near a forest. P.W 6 stated that he did not know whether Sita Devi made a complaint to his father, P.W.5, that she was given in marriage to a person, who was not having a proper house and to the person, who is living near a forest. P.W 6 also admitted that the deceased wanted to go to her parental home, but later stated that the deceased could not be taken to his house because her husband did not give her permission to go alongwith P.W 6. 9. The above evidence of P.W 6, therefore, shows that the deceased was not very happy with her marriage with the appellant and was also taking efforts to go back to her parental house. 10. In the above circumstances, we cannot come to a definite conclusion that the deceased committed suicide on the alleged ill-treatment made by the appellant. 9. The above evidence of P.W 6, therefore, shows that the deceased was not very happy with her marriage with the appellant and was also taking efforts to go back to her parental house. 10. In the above circumstances, we cannot come to a definite conclusion that the deceased committed suicide on the alleged ill-treatment made by the appellant. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence, we find it unsafe to uphold the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 5, the grandfather, and P.W. 6, the father of the deceased, who are interested witnesses. Moreso, Nhen the doctor, P.W. 7, who conducted autopsy gave evidence and stated that it is a case of suicide. 11. It is also worthwhile to remember that P.W. 8 when went to the scene of occurrence found the door locked from inside and that the officer had to enter in the room by removing the tiles. We are fully aware that even if a person commits suicide, it would fall within the provisions of Section 304(B) I.PC., but for the offence to be made out against a person, the prosecution should further establish that the death was on account of ill-treatment in connection with dowry. But the said evidence is lacking. 12. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and acquit the appellant. It is reported that the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, unless he is wanted in connection with any other case(s).