Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 399 (JHR)

Murari Yadav v. State of Bihar

2009-03-19

N.N.TIWARI, PRASHANT KUMAR

body2009
JEGEMENT The said two appeals arose out of the common Judgment of conviction dated 23.4.1999 and the order of sentence dated 24.4.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.T. No. 14/1997 whereby learned Trial Court has found the appellants guilty of the charges against them under Sections 3048 and 201 IPC. The appellant Murari Yadav (Cr. Appeal No. 178/1999) has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 304B IPC and R.I. for three years under Section 201 IPC. However, the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 171/1999 have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 304B IPC and R.I. for three years under Section 201 IPC. Sentences are to run concurrently. 2. As both the appeals are directed against the same judgment of the Court below, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The prosecution case was launched on the written report of Balram Yadav-informant (PW-8)-maternal uncle of the deceased Pramila Devi. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Pramila Devi and the accused Murari Yadav were married in the year 1992. As alleged, Murari Yadav and his family members used to pressurize Pramila Devi to bring dowry from her father and for that she was tortured by them. A panchayati was held on 16.6.1996 in the village which ended with a settlement arrived at between Pramila Devi and Murari Yadav. Both of them agreed before the Panches that there will be no dispute regarding any demand and that they will live in harmony. But in the night of 24.6.96, the accused persons killed Pramila Devi and threw her dead body on the railway line. 5. On the said report the police registered a case under Sections 304B/34 IPC against the appellants. The police after conclusion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet. 6. Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 304B/201 IPC against the appellants. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. They were put on trial. According to the accused-appellants, the death of Pramila Devi was accidental and out of grudge and in order to wreak vengeance the informant has falsely implicated the entire family members. 7. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges against the appellants altogether examined eleven witnesses. PW-1-Jagat Narayan Sharma is the covillager. They were put on trial. According to the accused-appellants, the death of Pramila Devi was accidental and out of grudge and in order to wreak vengeance the informant has falsely implicated the entire family members. 7. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges against the appellants altogether examined eleven witnesses. PW-1-Jagat Narayan Sharma is the covillager. He was produced by the persecution, but his evidence is not of any worth. PW-2-Deo Narayan Yadav is the maternal grandfather of the deceased Pramila Devi. He is not the witness to the alleged occurrence. PW-3-Lakhan Mahto is the father of the deceased. He is also not the witness to the alleged occurrence. PW-4 Manoj Prasad Yadav is the co-villager and cousin brother of the deceased, who has been declared hostile. PW-5-Kuldip Yadav is a tendered witness. PW-6-Subodh Prasad Singh is the Mukhiya and the covillager. He has not deposed anything regarding the alleged occurrence. PW-7Ram Chand Yadav is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He is also not the witness to the occurrence. PW-8-Balram Yadav is the informant. He had also not seen the occurrence. PW-10-Md. Alam is the I.O of the case. PW-11-Dr. Yogendra Narayan Singh had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and he has proved the injuries found by him. 8. The prosecution has also brought on record the written report of the informant (Ext.-1). the marriage corroboration certificate issued by the Baidya Nath Dham Temple (Ext.-2), the inquest report (Ext.-3) and the post mortem report (Ext.-4) 9. Learned Trial Court on the conclusion of trial held the appellants guilty of the charges under Sections 304B/201 IPC against the accused appellants. The Court below heavily relied on the testimony of PW-8-informant and also on the depositions of PW-7-maternal uncle of the deceased, PW-3-father of the deceased, PW2-maternal grandfather of the deceased and the medical evidence of PW-11 and held the appellants guilty of committing the alleged offences and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the said judgment of Court below on the following grounds: (i) There is no eye-witness in this case. (ii) PW-8-informant-maternal uncle of the deceased had personal grudge and enmity with the appellants. (iii) PW-7 is another maternal uncle of the deceased, (iv) PW-2 is the maternal grandfather of the deceased. (v) PW-3 is the father of the deceased. (ii) PW-8-informant-maternal uncle of the deceased had personal grudge and enmity with the appellants. (iii) PW-7 is another maternal uncle of the deceased, (iv) PW-2 is the maternal grandfather of the deceased. (v) PW-3 is the father of the deceased. (vi) No independent witness has been examined in the case. (vii) There is no evidence of commission of any overt act against the appellants constituting the alleged offences. (viii) There is no positive link to make any chain of circumstantial evidences to hold the appellants guilty of the alleged offences. (ix) The prosecution has failed to prove that immediately before her death the victim was harassed or treated with cruelty relating to the demand of dowry. (x) Having failed to do so, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was not available to the prosecution. (xi) The alleged offence itself is not constituted in absence of the said essential ingredients. (xii) There is no positive evidence on record to held the appellants guilty of the said charges. (xiii) The conviction and sentence of the appellants are not based on any admissible evidence on record and the same are vitiated. 11. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submitted that it is evident from the depositions of PW-2, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 that earlier there was quarrel between the appellants and the deceased Pramila Devi, as her husband Murari Yadav was demanding cycle and T.V. A panchayati was held and in presence of Panches Murari Yadav and Pramila Devi had resolved to live in harmony which goes to show that there was demand of dowry and Pramila Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment for fulfilling the said demand. Pramila Devi and Murari Yadav were married in the year 1992 and the death of Pramila Devi took place in an abnormal circumstance on 24.6.1996 within seven years which raises legal presumption against the appellants' guilt under Section 3048 IPC. Learned Trial Court on the basis of the said evidences coupled with the injuries found by PW-11 in the medical examination of the dead body of the deceased, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. we scrutinized the materials on record. PW-1 is the co-villager. He has not uttered any word in support of the prosecution case. PW-2 is the maternal grandfather of the deceased. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. we scrutinized the materials on record. PW-1 is the co-villager. He has not uttered any word in support of the prosecution case. PW-2 is the maternal grandfather of the deceased. In paragraph 5 of his deposition he has not stated anything about any cruelty or harassment on the deceased soon before her death. In paragraph 6 he has stated that the last rite of the deceased was performed by the father-inlaw. PW-3 is the father of the deceased. Though he has stated about the demand of T.V. and cycle, but there is nothing in his deposition regarding any cruelty or harassment on the deceased relating to the demand of dowry soon before her death. PW-4 is the co-villager. In paragraph 4 of his deposition he has stated that the relation between the deceased and the accused-appellants was cordial. He happens to be the cousin brother of the deceased. However, he has been declared hostile. PW-5 another co-villager has been tendered. PW-6 is the co-villager and Mukhiya of the village. He has stated that there was a panchayati in the village in which the deceased and her husband Murari Yadav had resolved and agreed to forget the differences and maintain a cordial matrimonial life and not to involve any of their family members in their personal quarrel. He has not uttered any word regarding the dowry related torture or cruelty before the death of the deceased. PW-7 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He is the witness on the panchayati in which the aforesaid settlement was arrived at between the deceased and Murari Yadav. PW-8 is the informant and the maternal uncle of the deceased. He has tried to support his version given in the written report on the basis of which this case was instituted. However, he has made vital contradictory statements as also developed the prosecution story. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of his deposition he has deposed that the appellants were inimical to him and the appellant Jitan Mahto had hand in a dacoity committed in his house. From overall reading of his deposition, it appears that he has tried his best to implicate the entire family members of the appellants. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of his deposition he has deposed that the appellants were inimical to him and the appellant Jitan Mahto had hand in a dacoity committed in his house. From overall reading of his deposition, it appears that he has tried his best to implicate the entire family members of the appellants. However, he has also not supported anything about any torture or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before the death of Pramila Devi. PW-10-I.O. stated that he had visited the house of the accused-appellants, but did not find anything unusual. No incriminating weapon or blood stained earth was found or recovered. It is relevant to mention that an U.D case was registered which was investigated by PW-9, but nothing worth mentioning was found by him in the investigation. PW-11-Dr. Yogendra Narayan Singh had held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found injuries on the dead body. He found the head of the deceased separated from the whole body at the level of fifth cervical vertebra which was post mortem in nature with lacerated injuries. On dissection of skull, blood clot was found present and brain cavity was full of blood clots. In his opinion, the death was due to head injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. In paragraph 5 he has stated that separation of head from rest of the body was possible by passing of a train over the dead body. No external visible injuries were found on skull. He has stated that he cannot say as to whether it was a case of accident. He has also stated that difference of time in ante mortem injuries and post mortem injuries cannot be given. 13. It is an admitted case that the railway line passes though the village nearby the house of the appellants. The appellants have taken defence that the death was accidental. On overall assessment, we are unable to find any clinching or cogent evidence to hold that there was cruelty and harassment on the deceased in connection with any demand of dowry. In absence of the said essential ingredient, the appellants cannot be presumed to be guilty of the charges levelled against them under Section 3048 IPC. 14. There is no positive evidence of inflicting any injury by the appellants. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. In absence of the said essential ingredient, the appellants cannot be presumed to be guilty of the charges levelled against them under Section 3048 IPC. 14. There is no positive evidence of inflicting any injury by the appellants. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. There is no independent witness to the alleged occurrence. From the depositions of the PW-8 made in Paragraphs 14 and 15, it appears that PW-8 is a partitioned (sic-partisan?) witness and he had personal grudge and enmity with the appellants. He has developed the prosecution story from stage to stage and it is not safe to rely upon his testimony. 15. We, therefore, find no legal ground to uphold the aforesaid conviction and sentence of the appellants for committing the alleged offences in absence of any direct or circumstantial evidential in the case. The appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 16. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants as also the impugned judgment are set aside. The appellant Murari Yadav (Criminal Appeal No. 178/1999), who is in custody, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. So far as ,the other appellants are concerned, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.