Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 867 (JHR)

Turawali Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2009-06-23

JAYA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT The appellants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 31.5.2001 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. No. 234 of 1992/ 33 of 2001 whereby both the appellants are convicted under Section 306/34 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I.for a period of five years and pay a fine a rupees 5000/-each and if both the convicts will not pay the amount as awarded then they will have to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and it will run consecutively. 2. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the fardbeyan of the informant in brief is that sister of the informant was married in the year 1985 with Md.Taib Ansari (son of the appellant). After two years of marriage accused appellants who are father -in-law and mother-in-law, started torturing his sister and told her that her parents have not given sufficient dowry and further directed her to bring further a sum of rupees 5000/-from her father. When his sister came to her Naihar then told the informant regarding ill treatment of accused appellants upon her. It is further alleged that the appellants tried to settle second marriage of their son in village Kharpokhar. As soon as the informant came to know about this, he reported this matter to the Anjuman Committee and the Anjuman Committee stop the second marriage of the son of the accused appellants. His sister gave birth to a female child thereafter when she went to her Sasural, her husband went to Bombay for doing job but left the informant’s sister in the village in the custody of both the accused persons. It is further alleged as both the accused persons again started torturing her, she became frustrated and on 16.7.91 consumed poison. Amrit Mahato of village Fatepur on 17.7.91 informed the informant regarding this incident. The informant along with his family members went to her sister’s house and found she was senseless and lying in a cot. They immediately took her and rushed to the Hospital for her treatment but on the way she died. On the basis of this information, a case has been registered against both the appellants under Section 306/34 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the both the appellants under Section 306/34 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove its case. On the basis of this information, a case has been registered against both the appellants under Section 306/34 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the both the appellants under Section 306/34 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove its case. P.W.1 Abdul Ansari, P.W.2 doctor B.P.Singh who conducted Post Mortem, P.W.3 Akhbar Asnari, P.W.4 Amna Khatoon, P.W.5 Safi Ansari, P.W.6 Miajan Mian and P.W.7 Habib Anasri, informant of this case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the appellants are old persons. The appellant No.1 is now aged about 78 years and appellant No.2 is 73 years and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that in view of the post mortem report the appellants can not be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. at all. 5. I have gone through the evidence of the witnesses and post mortem report. The post mortem report shows:- “No definite cause of death was ascertained in the course of post mortem examination. Hence the following visceras were preserved for chemical analysis. (a) Stomach content (b) Spleen (c) one kidney (d) a portion of liver, lung heart and small intestine”. 6. From the evidence of the doctor (P.W.2), I find that he has very specifically stated that no evidence of any external and internal injury either ante mortem or post mortem was found. He has further stated that no definite cause of death was ascertained in the course of P.M. Examination. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel of the appellant that the prosecution is not able to bring the report of viscera from Forensic Science Laboratory on record. Therefore definite cause of death is not ascertained in this case. 8. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 306 I.P.C are :- (i) That any person committed suicide; (ii) That such a commission of suicide by the consequence of an abetment; (iii) That the abetment was made by the accused. Therefore, if the prosecution has failed to prove the cause of death i.e. whether she had committed suicide or she died due to any disease or in any other manner and in this circumstance, the appellants can not be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. for not fulfilling the essential ingredients of the said section. 9. Therefore, if the prosecution has failed to prove the cause of death i.e. whether she had committed suicide or she died due to any disease or in any other manner and in this circumstance, the appellants can not be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C. for not fulfilling the essential ingredients of the said section. 9. Considering the evidence of doctor and the post mortem report, I find there is sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel of the appellants. 10. It is, therefore, evident from the discussions above that the impugned judgment of the learned court below suffers with illegality which requires interference therein. There is merit in the appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned Judgment of the court below is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are not found guilty for the offence under Section 306/34 I.P.C. leveled against them and they are acquitted and also discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.