Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 377 (PAT)

Jagroop Paswan And Anil Paswan v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-20

CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD

body2007
Judgment Chandra Mohan Prasad, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. This appeal is against the Judgment dated 21.11.2002/23.11.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 16/2000/253/2002 whereby the aforesaid two appellants have been convicted under Sec.304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for seven years. The appellants Anil Paswan is the husband and Jagrup Paswan is the father- in-law of the deceased, Anita Devi. 3. The informant Surajdeo Paswan, father of the deceased, came to Baroon P.S. on 24.7.1999 at about 7 P.M. and gave his fardbeyan stating that he had married his daughter (deceased) four years back to appellant Anil Paswan and that at the time of Bidai he had given household articles to the deceased according to his capacity. It is further alleged that after marriage one bicycle and T.V. were being demanded by the appellants and he (informant) had given assurance for fulfilment of the demand but he could not be able to fulfil this demand, hence, the sasural people used to beat his daughter (deceased) and that they had ousted her from her sasural after one year. He further stated that he pursuaded the sasural people to keep his daughter on his assurance that he will fulfil the demand of bicycle and T.V. and on his assurance they agreed to keep his daughter in sasural house and thereafter she started to live in her sasural. Further allegation of the informant is that due to poverty he could not be able to fulfil the demand as a result of which the husband, father-in-Law of the deceased started torturing and harassing her which fact was communicated to him by his daughter (deceased). The informant alleged that in the morning on 24.07.1999 his son-in-law (appellant Anil Paswan) came to him at Sona Vanaspati Factory at Barun where he was working and he (Anil Paswan) told him that the condition of his (informants) daughter (deceased) was (Sic) and asked him to meet her. Learning this the informant went to deceased Sasural at village Mastool Baroon and he found his daughter (deceased) lying in the house. Learning this the informant went to deceased Sasural at village Mastool Baroon and he found his daughter (deceased) lying in the house. He asked his daughter whereupon the daughter (deceased) stated that her husband (Anil Paswan) had stated that (Sic) last one month her husband (Anil Paswan) had kept her at the house of his maternal grand mother. The deceased also stated that she was carrying pregnancy of five months and that 2-3 days ago her husband (Anil Paswan) had beaten her badly due to non-fulfilment of the demand of bicycle and T.V. She also stated that in the previous night her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law had also beaten her causing assault on her abdomen as a result of which miscarriage was caused and bleeding started and that they were not taking any efforts for her medical treatment. The informant told his daughter (deceased) that he was going to bring her mother with him and then he will take her to hospital where she will take care of her. The informant came with the mother of the victim in the evening of that day (24.7.1999) but he did not find the deceased in her sasural house. On enquiry from neighbours he learnt that the deceased had died and the sasural people had taken the dead body towards Sona River for cremating the same. Learning this the informant went to Baroon P.S. where he gave his fardbeyan on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged. The police took immediate step and went to the place where the dead body had been taken for cremation. The police found that the dead body had been kept on the pyre for cremation but the dead body was seized and it was sent for post mortem examination. After completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted and the appellants were put on trial and they have been convicted and sentenced as stated above. 4. As many as five prosecution witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 is Dr. T.N. Shukla who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body P.W.2, Vijay Paswan, is uncle of the deceased but he has turned hostile. P.W. 3, Kalawati Kumari, is the younger sister of the deceased. P.W.4, Janakwa Devi, is the mother of the deceased. P.W.5 is Surajdeo Paswan who is the informant himself but he too turned hostile saying that he has compromised the case. P.W. 3, Kalawati Kumari, is the younger sister of the deceased. P.W.4, Janakwa Devi, is the mother of the deceased. P.W.5 is Surajdeo Paswan who is the informant himself but he too turned hostile saying that he has compromised the case. P.W. 6, Ramanuj Singh, is the Investigating Officer. 5. The appellants had also examined two defence witnesses. D.W.1 is Prabhawati Devi who is the neighbour of the appellants and who has simply deposed that the deceased had never complained her about any ill-treatment at the hands of the appellants. D.W. 2 is Dr. Arun Jaiswal who proved his prescription (Ext. A) and deposed that he had treated the deceased on 20.7.1999 and he had suspected case of kidney and liver failure but he does not mention about any kind of pregnancy, miscarriage or any injury on the person of the victim. Thus, this Doctor had seen the deceased four days prior to the occurrence of death and he has not been able to say anything happened to the deceased after 20.7.1999. This Doctor has also not said about any kind of treatment given to the deceased regarding kidney or liver failure of which ailment he stated about the deceased suffered of. 6. The Doctor (P.W.1) deposed that he conducted post mortem examination of the deceased on 25.7.1999 and he found rigor mortis present on the left limbs only. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body: I. A bruise on the left side of chest 6" x 2". II. A bruise on left side of the face 2-1/2" x 3". (face and fore-head). III. Swelling on the left side of face extending from tempral area to chest 6" x 1/2". All bluish in colour. IV. A bruise on right thigh 3" x 2". Bluish in colour. V. The libea mejora on both side were swellen Lochia rubra was coming from the veginal orifice. The line over vegina was smashed with red blood mucus. Viscera was kept for the opinion of the expert. The death was caused due to the above injuries. The death had been caused within 13 hours. The viscera was kept for clinical examination as there may be abortion and haemorrhage confirmation. The line over vegina was smashed with red blood mucus. Viscera was kept for the opinion of the expert. The death was caused due to the above injuries. The death had been caused within 13 hours. The viscera was kept for clinical examination as there may be abortion and haemorrhage confirmation. 7 P.W.6, Ramanuj Singh, the I.O. of this case, deposed that on 24.7.1999 the informant Surajdeo Paswan (P.W. 5) had lodged the F.I.R. at Baroon P.S. complaining about torture and harassment of the deceased on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of bicycle and T.V. He has proved the fardbeyan as Ext. 3. He further deposed that on recording the F.I.R. he took up the investigation and he visited the place of cremation and had seized the dead body and after preparing enquest report he sent it for post mortem examination. The enquest report was proved as Ext. 4. He had also investigated the P.O., i.e. the room in sasural house of the deceased. He further deposed in para 5 of his evidence that he recorded the statement of Vijay Paswan where he stated before him that due to non-fulfilment of the demand of bicycle and T.V. the deceased was being beaten. He also deposed that the informant, Surajdeo Paswan, (P.W. 5) stated before him that due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry the sasural people had killed his daughter. The sasural people had tortured and harassed her daughter and had killed her. 8. P.W.2, Vijay Paswan, who is the uncle of the deceased deposed in his examination that he did not know how the deceased died. He has turned hostile in his examination-in-chief. On his attention drawn by the Additional P.P. towards the previous statement he denied that any statement he had made before the police that while the deceased had come to maike she had complained of torture and assaults in her sasural house. But the I.O. (P.W. 8) has proved the police statement as given by this witness that he had given this statement before the police. It appears that this witness had resiled from his previous statement as made before the police. 9. But the I.O. (P.W. 8) has proved the police statement as given by this witness that he had given this statement before the police. It appears that this witness had resiled from his previous statement as made before the police. 9. P.W. 3, Kalawati Kumari (younger sister of the deceased) deposed that whenever the deceased came to her maike she complained that her husband and other members of her sasural family were demanding bicycle and T.V. and due to non fulfilment of the demand she was being beaten by them and she deposed that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were assaulting her. She also deposed that sasural people had taken the dead body for cremation but the police had seized the dead body. Thus, witness says about the torture and harassment at the hands of the appellant as communicated by the deceased to her when she used to come to her maike. 10. P.W.4, Janakwa Devi, is the mother of the deceased. She had deposed that whenever she came to maike she complained that due to non fulfilment of the demand of T.V. and bicycle her (deceased) husband and the other members of her family were assaulting her and they were also not providing her food. She further deposed that due to poverty they did not fulfil the demand and, hence, the accused persons killed the deceased. She further deposed that after learning about the death of the deceased she had gone to the sasural of the deceased but she did not find the dead body because the dead body had been taken away for cremation but the police seized the dead body. In her cross-examination at para 4 she again stated that whenever the deceased came to her house she used to complain about the assaults and torture given to her due to non - fulfilment of the demand, At para 7 of the cross-examination she has further deposed that once her son-in-law (Anil Paswan) had assaulted the deceased in her presence while the deceased was in her maike and that he had taken the deceased with him after beating her. The evidence shows that how the husband (appellant), Anil Paswan, used to beat her due to non - fulfilment of the demand of T.V. and bicycle and there is evidence in the nature of the complain as made by the deceased to her that the father-in-law and the mother-in-law were assaulting her due to non-fulfilment of the demand. 11. P.W.5, Suryadeo Paswan, the father of the deceased who is the informant of the case admitted in his evidence that he had given his fardbeyan at the Baroon Police Station which has been proved as Ext. 2. He stated that he has compromised the case and further stated that he does not know how the deceased had died. This witness has stated in his fardbeyan that the deceased had complained that 2-3 days ago her husband, Anil (appellant) had beaten her badly due to non-fulfilment of the dowry of T.V. and bicycle and that in the proceeding night the husband (Anil Paswan), father-in-law (Jagrup Paswan) and mother-in-law (Jagrup Paswan) and mother-in-law (Durgawati Devi) had assaulted on her abdomen as a result of which miscarriage took place and bleeding started. 12. The medical evidence as found by the doctor on postmortem examination shows injuries on the chest of the deceased and it also indicates abortion. It appears from the post mortem report that due to assault on the deceased abortion took place and no treatment was made available to her as result of which she died. There is evidence that 2-3 days ago the appellant husband, Anil Paswan, had badly assaulted the deceased and that there is evidence in the nature of the complain as made by the deceased to her parents about assaulting the deceased due to non-fulfilment of the demand and that they had also assaulted the deceased prior to the death. The medical evidence corroborates the assault and injury which has been the cause of the death. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above I find that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants had tortured and assaulted the deceased due to non fulfilment of the demand of dowry and the death of the death of the deceased is a dowry death. 13. In that view of the matter I find that the charge on the appellants have been proved beyond doubt. 13. In that view of the matter I find that the charge on the appellants have been proved beyond doubt. The appellants have been rightly convicted on the charge and the quantum of sentence as awarded is sufficient. Due to these reasons I find no scope to interfere with the order of the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed. The appeals are dismissed.