Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 123 (JHR)

Rajesh Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2009-01-27

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT The present appellant, Rajesh Pandey was put on trial along with three other accused persons for the charges under Sections 304B, 498A, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-VI, Jamshedpur, by his judgment dated 24.1.2005 convicted this appellant only for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was awarded further R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. For the charges under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, this appellant was acquitted. The other accused persons were acquitted from all the charges. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court by preferring this appeal. 2. The facts, in short, are that on Bali Pandey lodged a First Information Report on 13.3.1999 with Sonari Police Station, alleging therein that his daughter Meera Pandey was married to this appellant, Rajesh Pandey, on 8.12.1997. In the marriage, as per the demand, dowry was given but in spite of that, his daughter was being asked to bring more dowry from her parents and they used to torture her in different ways due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. On receipt of such information, the informant went to the in-laws place of his daughter and then after seeing her condition, he brought his daughter Meera Pandey back to Dhanbad. After some time, the appellant again took his wife, Meera Pandey, back to Jamshedpur. The informant’s another daughter Radha used to visit the in-laws place of Meera Pandey (the deceased) and she was being informed by Meera Pandey about the atrocities being committed on her by her in-laws. Meera Pandey also sent a letter to the informant informing him that she was being badly treated by her in-laws and her husband who used to beat her after consuming liquor. On 13.3.1999 at about 10 a.m., this appellant said to have informed the informant on telephone that his daughter Meera Pandey was no more. At this, the informant asked the appellant not to cremate her till he reaches, but the appellant did not respond and disconnected the telephone. On 13.3.1999 at about 10 a.m., this appellant said to have informed the informant on telephone that his daughter Meera Pandey was no more. At this, the informant asked the appellant not to cremate her till he reaches, but the appellant did not respond and disconnected the telephone. The informant went to the in-laws place of her daughter at Jamshedpur along with his another son-in-law, but they found that last rites of his daughter Meera Pandey was already done and the dead body was thrown in the river. The police recovered the dead body of Meera Pandey from the river. The informant saw the dead body of his daughter Meera Pandey and found that there was some ligature mark on her neck and there were some injuries also on her person, which indicated that she was firstly done to death and, thereafter, her dead body was thrown in the river. 3. The police took up the investigation and, therefore, submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons named in the FIR and, therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed, which they pleaded not guilty and, thereafter, the accused persons including the present appellant were put on trial. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution, in order to establish the charges, examined altogether 15 witnesses and also adduced some documentary evidences. 5. As per the Post Mortem Report (Ext. 9), it was found that blood stained fluid coming out from mouth and nose, nails blue, face highly congested, eyes swollen, highly congested with presence of petchial hemorrhage in the conjunctiva of both eyes. Tongue partially protruded and the following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body : “ Ligature Mark – 13 c.m. x 3 to 4 c.m. on the front of the neck. The ligature mark is contused and abrogaled at places. On dissection it is lechery brown at places. The lungs are highly congested with presence of petechial hemorrhage. The ligature mark is present over the upper part of the neck internally the neck muscles are contused in an area of 5 x 3 c.m. in the right side of the neck middle part just below the ligature mark. “ According to the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was strangulation and time elapsed since death was 24 to 48 hours. “ According to the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was strangulation and time elapsed since death was 24 to 48 hours. Though the doctor, who conducted the Post Mortem, was not examined by the prosecution, but the Post Mortem Report was brought on record and proved by an another doctor, P.W. 12, who was posted as Associate Professor in the Department of Forensic Science of M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur and was acquainted with the handwriting of Dr. Renu Bala, who had conducted the Post Mortem Examination. 6. The trial court, on the basis of the materials on record, acquitted the other three accused persons namely, Indradeo Pandey, Janki Devi and Ganesh Pandey, who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the deceased, from all the charges but found this appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and further to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. However, he was acquitted from the charges under Sections 304B and 498A of Indian Penal Code. 7. Mr. S.N. Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenging the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubts against this appellant and the trial court only on the basis of presumption, conjuncture and surmises has found this appellant guilty and as such the same is not sustainable in law. 8. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that the trial court having taken into consideration the evidences led by the prosecution did find that the prosecution has failed to establish the factum of demand of dowry and subjection to cruelty and as such acquitted the appellant and other accused persons for the charges under Sections 304B and 498A of Indian Penal Code and at the same time, the trial court also acquitted the other accused persons for the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of Indian Penal Code, but the trial court on the same set of evidences found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that there was unnatural death of the deceased for which no satisfactory explanation was put forth by the appellant to the family members of the deceased; and that the appellant did not take any step for saving life of his wife if she had committed suicide; and that there was motive for committing offence of murder, as the appellant was not happy with his wife, as she was not mentally sound. 9. Having gone through the evidences led by the prosecution, we do find that the prosecution sought to prove the charges by leading evidences that the deceased was strangulated to death in the house of the appellant but the prosecution has failed to assign any motive for committing murder of the deceased, though the trial court, on the basis of the statement made by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.C.P. that he was made to marry the deceased though she was not mentally fit, assumed that the appellant was not happy with the deceased, but the evidence led in this regard on behalf of the prosecution is quite otherwise, wherein P.W. 2 has testified that he, being a neighbour, never heard about any altercation being taken place in between the wife and husband. Nothing has been brought on record to establish that the relationship in between the wife and husband was not cordial. In that event, the trial court was not correct in assuming that there was a motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Nothing has been brought on record to establish that the relationship in between the wife and husband was not cordial. In that event, the trial court was not correct in assuming that there was a motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Further, we do find that the appellant had also informed to the parents of the deceased about the death of the deceased but that act of giving information which normally speaks about the innocence of the accused has back fired, as it was assumed by the court that it was the appellant who gave information about the death of the deceased was alone present in the house and was responsible for the offence alleged though the court has itself recorded that the prosecution has not brought evidence with respect to the persons who were living in the house and on that ground the trial court acquitted the other accused but convicted the appellant on the same material which was there against the other accused persons. In this respect, it be stated that it is true that non-disclosure of any special knowledge of any factual aspect is taken to be incriminating circumstances but in the instant case, it is never the case of the prosecution that it was the appellant who was alone living in the house along with the deceased and under these situations, the prosecution can never be said to have proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, we do find that nothing is there to establish about the motive for committing the offence nor the prosecution has been able to establish that it was the appellant who was alone in the house along with the deceased and that the appellant had informed about the death of the deceased to her family members and that as the other accused persons on the same set of evidences have been acquitted, the appellant, in that circumstances as aforesaid, deserves to have benefit of doubt. 10. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Consequently, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed.