Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 199 (JHR)

Chigu Ravidas v. State of Bihar

2009-02-09

N.N.TIWARI, PRASHANT KUMAR

body2009
JUDMGENT By Court.- The appellants were charged under Sections 304B and 201 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B and 201 IPC. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 304B and for 2 years R.I. under Section 201 of the IPC. 2. The first appellant before us is Chigu Ravidas, the husband. The appellant no. 2 is mother-in-law and the appellant no. 3 is younger brother-in-law (Devar) of the informant's daughter. 3. The prosecution case, in brief is that, the first appellant was married to Raj Kumari in the year 1990. No date of marriage has been disclosed. It is the prosecution case that the appellants and other family members were making demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/- and for non-fulfilling the demand, they were torturing Raj Kumari mentally and physically. The informant (P.W. 1) came to know on 3.6.1997 that her daughter died and she was cremated by the appellants and others without informing the informant and other family members. 4. On the written report of Radha Devi dated 3.6.1997, the case was registered under Sections 3048, 201 and 1206/34 of the I PC against seven persons. However, the police after Investigation submitted charge-sheet only against the appellants and the father-in-law-Chhotan Ravidas (since dead). 5. Charge under Sections 3048 and 201/34 IPC were framed against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The were put on trial. 6. The prosecution in order to prove the charges against the appellants altogether examined 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 is the informant Radha Devi who tried to support the statement made in the FIR. P.W.2 Shyam Ravidas, P.W.3 Sushil Harijan, P.W.4 Nageshwar Ravidas, P.W.5 Tulsi Ravidas, P.W. 6 Mahendra Harijan all were from the village of the informant and closely related. Admittedly they have not seen the occurrence and they have given the evidence what was heard by the informant (P.W. 1). P.W. 7 in paragraph 4 clearly stated that he had not seen anything. P.W. 8 Janardhan Das proved the Panchnama, which was on record of the I so-called panchayati, held for settling the disputes between the informant's daughter and the other in-laws. P.W. 9 is said to be resident of Village-Maheshpur where the informant's daughter died but he has not thrown any light on the occurrence. P.W. 8 Janardhan Das proved the Panchnama, which was on record of the I so-called panchayati, held for settling the disputes between the informant's daughter and the other in-laws. P.W. 9 is said to be resident of Village-Maheshpur where the informant's daughter died but he has not thrown any light on the occurrence. P.W. 10 is I.O. but he has also not been able to bring on record anything to support or corroborate the ocular testimony of the P.W. 1. 7. The defence of the appellants was the denial of the charge. In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, it was clearly stated that the allegation of the death of the informant's daughter is false and that three days before the alleged date of occurrence Raj Kumari had gone to Village Hilawe, his maternal uncle house and she did not return. In order to support the defence two witnesses have been examined as D.W. 1 and D.W. 2. 8. Learned trial court on conclusion of trial held the appellant guilty for the charges under Section 304B and 201 IPC. The court below heavily relied on the evidence of P. W. 1 and th8 other relative P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 and held the appellants guilty of the said charges and convicted them as aforesaid. 9. Mr. AK Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants have assailed the impugned judgment of court below on following grounds: (i) The prosecution has failed to establish the charge. against the appellants under Section 304B inasmuch as there is no iota of evidence on record prove that the alleged death took place within seven years of marriage. (ii) There is no evidence on record to show that the death was caused by any burns, bodily injuries or occurred red otherwise than in normal circumstances. (iii) There is no proof of cruelty or harassment with any demand for dowry and the close proximity of time. He further submitted that in absence of the said essential ingredients, the presumption of Section 113B of the Evidence Act is not applicable to the prosecution. In this case, there is neither legal presumption in favour of the prosecution nor there is any convincing and positive evidence to prove the charges. Learned trial court has committed serious error in coming to the said conclusion of conviction of the appellants under Section 304B and 201 of the IPC. In this case, there is neither legal presumption in favour of the prosecution nor there is any convincing and positive evidence to prove the charges. Learned trial court has committed serious error in coming to the said conclusion of conviction of the appellants under Section 304B and 201 of the IPC. Learned counsel, in course of argument, drew our attention on the facts of the informant P.W. 1 who has herself stated that there was never any panchayati regarding the demand of dowry, the complain of her daughter was ill-treatment at the hands of the in-laws and the allegation of demanding sexual favour by the father-in-law. Learned counsel particularly, referred to paragraphs 5, 20, 21, 25 and 26 of her deposition. Learned counsel submitted that the informant alone said to have visited her daughter's house at Village-Maheshpur the next day but the other witnesses even did not visit the place and they came to know about the occurrence through the in formant P .W. 1. There is neither any substance in the evidence of P.W. 1 nor there is any corroboration of the prosecution version by any peace of evidence. The witnesses examined are mostly closely related and none of the independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution version. Learned counsel submitted that there was no sufficient material before the learned trial court to hold the appellants guilty of the said charges. 10. The learned APP, on the other hand, strongly supported the judgment of the learned trial court and submitted that no clear date of marriage has come in the evidence or in the statement of the informant. It is consistent case of the prosecution that the marriage of the deceased with appellant no. 1 took place in the year, 1990 and the occurrence took place on 2nd June, 1997. In absence of any evidence on the point of date of marriage, the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded as it cannot be presumed that the marriage took place before the month of June, In absence of such evidence, date of marriage can be presumed even after June, 1990. Learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration the intent and scheme of the legislature in enacting Section 3048 of the IPC read with Section 1138 of the Evidence Act presumption like other cases is not of innocence. Learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration the intent and scheme of the legislature in enacting Section 3048 of the IPC read with Section 1138 of the Evidence Act presumption like other cases is not of innocence. There is complete absence of any such proof and the appellants cannot be given advantage of a insignificant lapse on the part of the prosecution. The learned trial court taking into account provisions as also the facts and evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellants and interference with the same is not warranted. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and' the learned APP, we have scrutinized the material on record. It is admitted position in this case that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The informant (P.W.1) said to have visited the place, the next day, by that time the dead body of Raj Kumari was already consigned. Even the remains had not been seized by the police. The P.W.1 who complained that her daughter was killed by her in-laws was not able to state the manner in which she died. The village is inhibited by 100 people but not a single villager of Maheshpur came forward to support the prosecution version. In the evidence of P.W. 1, we do not find any statement to co-relate the death with torture and demand of dowry by the in-laws. The main grievance was the ill-behaviour by in-laws and demand of sexual favour by the father-in-law. The proximity of time of torture is also absent as in paragraph 7, P.W. 4 has clearly said that he had not met her daughter for about a year. P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5 and P.W. 6 were all near relations of the informant and they are not resident of this Village. They have frankly stated that they have not seen the occurrence. P.W. 3 said that he has not even heard about the dispute with regard to demand of Dahej (dowry). P.W. 2, Shyam Ravidas, the uncle of the deceased stated that there was panchayati regarding the dispute between the Raj Kumari and her in-laws but' the same was not regarding payment of dowry. P.W. 4 Nageshwar Ravidas said to accompanied Radha to Maheshpur on the next day but he has not supported the prosecution version of demand of dowry, torture and death of Raj Kumari related therewith. P.W. 4 Nageshwar Ravidas said to accompanied Radha to Maheshpur on the next day but he has not supported the prosecution version of demand of dowry, torture and death of Raj Kumari related therewith. We do not find any other substantive peace of evidence in the deposition of P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W.7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 the 1.0. of the case. 12. In view of above, we are constrained to hold that in absence of any evidence regarding the date of marriage and the date of death having taken place within seven years of the marriage and even the fact of death, in view of the clear defence that Raj Kumari did not died rather she had gone to her maternal uncle's house at Village-Hilawe, we are unable to uphold the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial court. 13. We, accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 3048 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the appellant no. 1, namely, Chigu Ravidas is still said to be in custody, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appellant nos. 2 and 3 are discharged from the liability of their bail bond.