Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1604 (PAT)

Muni Lal Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-11-30

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT (CAV) R.K. Mishra, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.8.2000 and order of sentence dated 26.8.2000 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1994/111 of 1998, whereby the appellant, Muni Lal Singh, has been found guilty for the offence under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently, while no separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The other five accused, namely. Sudama Singh, Nagina Singh, Sugriva Singh, Rajmatiya Devi alias Shivajotiya and Dhanai Singh who also faced the trial alongwith the appellant, Muni Lal Singh, have not been found guilty and they were acquitted of the said charges. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Jagdish Singh (PW 4) gave his fardbeyan on 15.6.1993 at about 4.45 p.m. in village-Sadarpur, to Triveni Rai (PW 8), Officer Incharge of Baraharia Police Station, to the effect that he had performed the marriage of his deceased daughter, Kunta Devi, with the appellant, Muni Lal Singh, son of Nagina Singh, of village-Sadarpur, P.S. Baraharia, District-Siwan, in the year 1987 and she had no issue. At the time of her marriage, the accused, Muni Lal Singh (appellant), Nagina Singh, Dhanii Singh, Sudama Singh, Sugriva Singh and the wife of Nagina Singh, made demand of cash of Rs.10,000/- and a television but he could not fulfill due to inability and assured to fulfill the aforesaid demand later on. After the marriage, his daughter was sent in bidai but he could not give the cash and articles and due to that reasons, his daughter was being tortured by the accused persons. His daughter gave information to him and her brother for the same. His daughter always used to tell her brother to hand over the cash and television anyhow, otherwise her in-laws would kill her. He gave assurance to the accused persons that on arrangement of the money, the demand would be fulfilled. His daughter gave information to him and her brother for the same. His daughter always used to tell her brother to hand over the cash and television anyhow, otherwise her in-laws would kill her. He gave assurance to the accused persons that on arrangement of the money, the demand would be fulfilled. His daughter came to her maika in the month of fagun and started weeping saying that in case of non-fulfillment of demand, she would be killed. In the month of vaishakh, his son-in-law, Muni Lal Singh (appellant) came for the bidai of his daughter then he made request to Muni Lal Singh (appellant) for giving time to fulfill the demand, on which he replied that if the demand would not be fulfilled, there would be dire consequences and he took his daughter in bidai. On 8.6.1993, the informant alongwith his son went to meet his daughter and when he did not find her at the house, he became apprehensive. On query, her in-laws told that his daughter has been taken by his son-in-law to Punjab. Thereafter, he came in suspicion that his daughter has been killed and her dead body has been concealed. He alongwith his son and others started to trace out his daughter and in that course, on 15.6.1993, he found some fresh soil in barren land of Nagina Singh and on removing the soil he found the dead body of his daughter, Kunta Devi, and at that time many people gathered and the police also came and he gave his fardbeyan. He believed that his daughter has been killed on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand and her dead body has been concealed. 3. The fardbeyan (Ext.4) of the informant resulted in the formal F.I.R. vide Baraharia P.S. Case No. 71 of 1993 dated 15.6.1993 under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused, Muni Lal Singh (appellant), Nagina Singh, Dhani Singh. Sudama Singh, Sugriva Singh and the wife of Nagina Singh. 4. The police on investigation of the case submitted the charge-sheet and after cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, where the charges were explained to the accused persons, who pleaded their innocence and, accordingly, the trial proceeded. Sudama Singh, Sugriva Singh and the wife of Nagina Singh. 4. The police on investigation of the case submitted the charge-sheet and after cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, where the charges were explained to the accused persons, who pleaded their innocence and, accordingly, the trial proceeded. The defence of the accused-appellant, as appears from the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, is that the deceased died due to falling in a well. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether 8 witnesses. They are PW 1, Gautam Singh, PW 2, Saheb Prasad Chaudhary, PW 3, Ali Imam Khan, PW 4, Jagdish Singh (informant), PW 5, Parashuram Singh, PW 6, Dr. S.K. Aman, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, Kunta Devi, PW 7, Shanti Devi and PW 8, Triveni Rai, the I.O. of the case. Out of the aforesaid 8 witnesses, PW 2, Saheb Prasad Chaudhary and PW 3, Ali Imam Khan, have proved their signatures on the inquest report as Exts.1 and 1/l respectively. 6. The trial Court considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused-appellant, Muni Lal Singh, while the other accused were acquitted of the charges giving the benefit of doubt. 7. PW 4. Jagdish Singh, who is the informant of the case, has stated in his evidence that the marriage of his daughter, Kunta Devi (deceased) was performed with the accused-appellant. Muni Lal Singh, resident of village-Sadarpur, P.S. Baraharia. After the marriage, his daughter went to her sasural, where she was being tortured by the accused persons for the demand of television and cash of Rs. 10,000/-. Whenever, his daughter used to come to her maika, she used to tell about her torture for the demand. His son had gone to sasural of his daughter to talk with the accused persons but the accused persons were adamant on their demand then his son told them that when he would be capable he would fulfill the demand. His daughter also told him that if the demand would not be fulfilled, she would be killed. In the month of vaishakh, his son-in-law. His daughter also told him that if the demand would not be fulfilled, she would be killed. In the month of vaishakh, his son-in-law. Muni Lal Singh (appellant) had come to his house then he told his son-in-law, Muni Lal Singh (appellant) that on arrangement of the money, he would fulfill the demand, on which he gave threatening that if the demand would not be fulfilled, there would be dire consequences and his daughter was taken in bidai. This witness has further stated in his evidence that when he went to the sasural of his daughter before 1-1/2 years, he did not find his daughter there and, on query, he was informed by her in-laws that his daughter has been taken by his son-in-law to Punjab then he came in suspicion that his daughter has been killed and her dead body has been concealed. He had gone to the sasural of his daughter alongwith Gautam Singh (PW 1). Parashuram Singh (PW 5) and Lalbabu Singh. In course of search of his daughter, when he alongwith them reached at about 2 p.m. in the field of Nagina Singh, they found a fresh soil and on removing the same, the dead body of his daughter. Kunta Devi, was recovered, where several people gathered. On information, darogaji came, who recorded his fardbeyan and on reading over the same, he put his signature on the fardbeyan. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan as Ext.2. He has also proved the signature of Ramnath Singh and Parashuram Singh on the fardbeyan as Ext.2/l. This witness has further stated in paragraph-3 of his cross-examination that before giving the fardbeyan before the police he had given an application in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the death of his daughter and had also given an application to the S. P. before 15-20 days of the recovery of the dead body of his daughter. This witness has been cross-examined at length but nothing has come in his cross-examination to disbelieve his statement as given in examination-in-chief. PW 1, Gautam Singh, is the brother of the deceased. Kunta Devi. He has stated in his evidence that before 16 months, he heard about the murder of his sister. This witness has been cross-examined at length but nothing has come in his cross-examination to disbelieve his statement as given in examination-in-chief. PW 1, Gautam Singh, is the brother of the deceased. Kunta Devi. He has stated in his evidence that before 16 months, he heard about the murder of his sister. He alongwith his father, maternal uncle and 2-4 other persons went to the sasural of his sister, where Nagina Singh met, who, on query, told that his sister has been taken by her husband. Muni Lal Singh, at Punjab. When he alongwith others came out from the village then found the fresh soil at one place. On removing the soil, the dead body of his sister was recovered. This witness has further stated that the marriage of his sister was performed 7 years ago with the accused-appellant. Muni Lal Singh. At the time of marriage, the accused persons had made demand of cash of Rs.10,000/- and a television and due to non-fulfillment of the same, his sister has been killed. PW 5. Parashuram Singh, who is also the brother of the deceased. Kunta Devi, has stated in his evidence that the marriage of his sister was performed with the accused-appellant. Muni Lal Singh. This witness has further stated in his evidence that the accused persons used to quarrel with his sister for cash of Rs.10,000/- and a television because the same was not provided at the time of marriage of his sister. He has also stated that he came to know about the torture to his sister for demand. He has further stated that due to non-fulfillment of the demand his sister has been killed and her dead body has been buried. This witness has further stated that on hearing the murder of his sister he alongwith his father. Gautam Singh (PW 1) and Lalbabu Sihgh, went to sasural of his sister, where they were informed by the in-laws of his sister-that his sister has been taken to Punjab by her husband. Muni Lal Singh but did not rely on their statements and started search and at one place he saw the fresh soil and on removing the same, the dead body of his sister (deceased) was recovered. On information to the police station, darogaji came and recorded his statement. Muni Lal Singh but did not rely on their statements and started search and at one place he saw the fresh soil and on removing the same, the dead body of his sister (deceased) was recovered. On information to the police station, darogaji came and recorded his statement. This witness has also been cross-examined at length but nothing has come in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve his statement as given by him in examination-in-chief. PW 7, Shanti Devi, is the mother of the deceased. Kunta Devi. She has stated in her evidence that the marriage of her daughter, Kunta Devi, was performed with the accused-appellant, Muni Lal Singh, before 4 years of her death. After the marriage, her daughter had gone to her sasural, where her in-laws used to torture her for motorcycle, television and cash of Rs.10,000/- giving threatening to kill her. Her daughter had narrated her about the torture for demand by the accused persons. She has further stated that her son-in-law, Muni Lal Singh (appellant) had taken her daughter in bidai and after 5-6 days, it has come in the knowledge that the accused persons had killed her daughter, thereafter, she sent her husband. This witness has further stated that when her husband asked about his daughter. Nagina Singh, the father-in-law of her daughter, replied that Muni Lal Singh had taken her to Punjab, while the villagers told that she had been killed. This witness has further stated in paragraph-4 of her cross-examination that his son-in-law was residing at Punjab, who used to make demand of television, motorcycle and cash of Rs. 10,000/-. Her daughter had informed her about the demand. This witness has also denied the suggestion of the defence that her daughter had died due to falling in a well and accused persons had informed her about the death of her daughter. 8. PW 8, Triveni Rai, who is the I.O. of the case, has stated in his evidence that on 15.6.1993 he was posted as Officer In-charge at Barharia Police Station. He was also the I.O. of Barharia P.S. Case No. 71 of 1993. He has further stated that the fardbeyan is in his writing and pen, which was explained to the informant, Jagdish Singh (PW 4), who put his signature on his fardbeyan. This witness has proved the fard beyan of the informant. Jagdish Singh (PW 4) marked as Ext. 4. He has further stated that the fardbeyan is in his writing and pen, which was explained to the informant, Jagdish Singh (PW 4), who put his signature on his fardbeyan. This witness has proved the fard beyan of the informant. Jagdish Singh (PW 4) marked as Ext. 4. This witness has further stated that after lodging the F.I.R. he inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses and on the direction of the senior officials, he submitted the charge-sheet. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination that he received the information on rumour and he went to the place of occurrence on making Sanha entry. 9. PW 6, is Dr. S.K. Arnan, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, Kunta Devi. This witness has stated in his evidence that on 16.6.1993 he held post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. Kunta Devi, of village-Sadarpur, P.S. Baraharia, District-Siwan and found the following ante-mortem injuries : (i) Whole body was found decomposed with foul smelling. (ii) Body and clothes stained with mud. (iii) Tongue protruded. (iv) Neck flaccid. (v) Cricoids and laryngeal cartilage found on fractured. On dissection, heart was found empty, lungs were found decomposed, in abdomen-all viscera found to be in the state of decomposition, uterus was found in normal size, skull and brain was found in the state of decomposition. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. The time since death to postmortem examination was within 7 to 10 days. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination that the death by asphyxia is also possible by drowning. Normally human body and its flesh get completely decomposed within two weeks. 10. From the evidence of the informant, Jagdish Singh (PW 4) and other witnesses, namely, Gautam Singh (PW 1), Parashuram Singh (PW 5) and Shanti Devi (PW 7) it is clear that the deceased. Kunta Devi, died within seven years of her marriage and her dead body was recovered from the field in her sasural village. It is clear from the evidence of PW 6. Dr. S.K. Aman, that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of throttling within 7 to 10 days prior to the post-mortem examination of the dead body. Kunta Devi, died within seven years of her marriage and her dead body was recovered from the field in her sasural village. It is clear from the evidence of PW 6. Dr. S.K. Aman, that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of throttling within 7 to 10 days prior to the post-mortem examination of the dead body. While PW 7, Shanti Devi, has been suggested in her cross-examination by the defence regarding death of deceased, Kunta Devi, due to falling down in well but there is nothing on record to show that regarding said occurrence an information was given to the police station. As such, the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction. 11. As far as the order of sentence is concerned, the accused-appellant, Muni Lal Singh, was in custody since 17.7.1993 during trial and ordered to be released on 20.9.2000 after filing the appeal. The period of custody of the accused-appellant, Muni Lal Singh, appears to be more than 7 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the period already undergone in custody by the accused-appellant, Muni Lal Singh, would suffice to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone in custody. 12. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence as indicated above. The appellant, Muni Lal Singh, is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Appeal dismissed.