Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 948 (PAT)

Sanjib Sharma v. State of Bihar

2012-07-09

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J.:–Both these appeals arising out of common judgment have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The five appellants before this Court have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 01st March, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 03rd March, 200 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1996 whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Rajib Sharma, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2000 is the husband of the victim girl Sunita Devi, whereas Sanjib Sharma is the brother-in-law, Sukheshwar Sharma is the father-in-law, Jahari Devi is the grand mother-in-law and Rajeshwari Devi is the mother-in-law of the victim girl. 3. An interlocutory application has been filed in Court, in which it has been stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant no. 3 of Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2000 died. The death certificate which is annexed to the interlocutory application indicates that she died on 03.06.2007. In the circumstances, the appeal of Jahari Devi stands abated. 4. The prosecution case has been instituted on the basis of the statement of Deo Chandra Rai, the brother of the victim girl. On 17.10.1993 at 7 AM, on hearing the news that his sister had been done to death went to the house of appellant Sukheshwar Sharma, where he saw the body of his sister in a burnt condition. He has stated in the First Information Report that his sister was married about five years ago with Rajib Sharma. It is alleged that after the marriage, there was a demand of television, cycle, watch and a buffalo and on non-fulfilment of the said demand, her in-laws used to torture her. The informant along with his father had visited her but they were not allowed to meet Sunita Devi and a demand was raised by the in-laws. It is further stated that once when he went to meet his sister, he found her crying and the appellant Rajib Sharma, Sukheshwar Sharma and his wife abused and pushed him out of the house. It is further stated that once when he went to meet his sister, he found her crying and the appellant Rajib Sharma, Sukheshwar Sharma and his wife abused and pushed him out of the house. The informant claims that he came to know through Taleshwar Pandey, son of Ram Ratan Pandey (PW 2) who is the maternal uncle of the informant that his sister has been done to death by her In-laws by pouring kerosene oil on her body and thereafter burning her, as a result of which she died. The said burning took place on the previous night. The fardbayan has been marked as Exhibit-4 which bears the signature of a witness Ram Ratan Pandey, whereass and the formal First Information Report has been marked as Exhibit-5. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report, the trial commenced in this case and altogether five witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. PW 1, Ram Jugat Rai has signed on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit-1. 6. PW 1 Ram Jugat Rai is the cousin brother of the victim girl. He claims that he came to know about the occurrence through Taleshwar Pandey and Ram Ratan Pandey. In his examination-in-chief, he claims to have learnt about the occurrence from Taleshwar Pandey and Ram Ratan Pandey at about 5 AM. He supports the case that there was a demand of dowry. He has signed on the inquest report and has stated clearly at paragraph 8 that when he reached to the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer was already present. It is his categorical statement, that at the time when he reached the place of occurrence, other villagers were also there. However, he was the only person belonging to the family of the victim girl who was present when the inquest report was being prepared. He further admits that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage and states that the In-laws of Sunita Devi are richer than the family of the victim girl. The Investigating Officer had also taken his statement. Attention of this witness has been drawn to the statement given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he has stated that he had got information regarding the occurrence from Deo Chandra Rai, the brother of the victim girl. 7. The Investigating Officer had also taken his statement. Attention of this witness has been drawn to the statement given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he has stated that he had got information regarding the occurrence from Deo Chandra Rai, the brother of the victim girl. 7. PW 2 Ram Ratan Pandey is the maternal uncle (MAMA) of the victim lady and also the brother-in-law (SALA) of the father of the victim girl. He lives in the same village as the victim girl. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has deposed that he heard his niece crying out for help and when he went to the place of occurrence, he saw that she had caught fire. He claims that he heard the sound from a distance about 400 yards and that when he went to the place of occurrence, the victim girl had stated that “ekek gks ekek gedks lc feydj tyk fn;k” This witness has stated that the victim girl was crying out for water and he went to get water to douse the fire. He supports the case that there was a demand of dowry. He has been cross-examined in some details and there are several discrepancies in his evidence with respect to his version that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence and the fact that the victim girl was alive when he reached the place of occurrence. The distance from the place of occurrence and the house of PW 2 has been taken into account during the cross-examination and according to this witness he was about 28-38 laggis which would mean that he was about 100 yards away from the place of occurrence. He accepts that he lives in a different tola of the same village and that there are 20-30 houses between the house of Sunita Devi and the house of this witness. He claims that several persons came to the place of occurrence after he raised an alarm. The attention of this witness has been drawn as to whether he has stated that he saw Sunita Devi burning and that he ran to get water before the Investigating Officer while giving his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. PW 3 Maithil Rai is the father of the victim girl. The attention of this witness has been drawn as to whether he has stated that he saw Sunita Devi burning and that he ran to get water before the Investigating Officer while giving his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. PW 3 Maithil Rai is the father of the victim girl. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that ten days prior to the occurrence, he went to meet his daughter. On reaching her house, he was pushed out by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and other IN-laws of the victim girl and was not permitted to meet his daughter. He also claims that there was a demand of cycle, television etc. This witness does not remember the date or the year of the marriage. He only remembers that it was in the month of PHAGUN. This witness admits that he did not give anything at the time of marriage to his daughter. He subsequently stated that he had given his SAMADHI a sum of Rs. 1,000/- which he had given at the house of his SAMADHI. This witness has also stated that he visited his daughter for the first time ten days prior to the occurrence and that his son had also visited his sister. Both of them were not permitted to meet Sunita Devi. This witness further states that when the In-laws did not permit him to meet his daughter, he spent the night in the house of PW 2 Ram Ratan Pandey. He claims that his daughter and son-in-law are of the same age i.e. both of them were about 16 years old. At paragraph 16, this witness admits that the appellants had gifted ornaments to his daughter worth Rs. 20,000/- and that they owned about 8 bighas of land whereas this witness owns only about 1½ bighas of land, which is looked after by his two sons. He claims that he went to the house of the appellants at about 9 AM and found that the appellants had all absconded from the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, he reiterates the story that he went to his daughter’s house and was not allowed to meet her and that there was a demand of a cycle, buffalo and a television. In his cross-examination, he reiterates the story that he went to his daughter’s house and was not allowed to meet her and that there was a demand of a cycle, buffalo and a television. This witness also admits that he did not inform the police regarding the behaviour of the appellants with him when he went to meet his daughter. 9. PW 4 Deo Chandra Rai is the informant of this case and the brother of the victim girl. His version of the occurrence is that he was informed regarding the occurrence by Taleshwar Pandey. In his examination-in-chief, he states that his sister was tortured because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and that he was insulted and not allowed to meet his sister when he went to meet her. He proves his signature on the First Information Report. At paragraph 6, he states that his father had also gone to meet Sunita Devi ten days prior to the occurrence but he was also not allowed to meet his daughter. He supports the case of demand of dowry and he claims that he came to know about the occurrence through Taleshwar Pandey. At the time when he was told about the occurrence, other villagers such as Upendra Shama, Ram Chandra Choudhary were also present at his house. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that when he went to the place of occurrence, the Daroga had already reached the place of occurrence. However, no document was prepared in his presence. After giving his fardbayan, he left the house of the victim girl and met his father when he returned from the Manjhouli village. He claims that the body of Sunita Devi was taken for post-mortem in his presence. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the appellants have been convicted. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the entire case is false. The appellants cannot be held responsible for the death of the victim girl nor was there a demand of dowry or torture meted out to Sunita Devi. The important witness as well as the Investigating Officer has been withheld by the prosecution which gives a fatal blow to the version as put forth by the informant and others. The appellants cannot be held responsible for the death of the victim girl nor was there a demand of dowry or torture meted out to Sunita Devi. The important witness as well as the Investigating Officer has been withheld by the prosecution which gives a fatal blow to the version as put forth by the informant and others. It has been suggested that the victim girl was about 16 years of age, whereas she was married to a boy who was about 12-1`3 years of age, which caused frustration and led her to commit suicide. 11. The first attack to the prosecution case is the evidence of PW 2 Ram Ratan Pandey. As pointed out, PW 2 is the maternal uncle of the victim lady and he has introduced a completely new version to the prosecution case. According to this witness, he actually saw Sunita Devi when she was alive and he claims that she told him that her In-laws have set her on fire. The version of this witness regarding the manner of occurrence is unbelievable. Firstly, if the PW 2 had arrived at the spot and had seen his niece burning, he would have raised alarm, tried to save her life by dousing the fire instead of leaving the house purportedly to look for water as the victim girl was screaming for water. This witness is also important in view of the fact that he was the mediator in the marriage. It has been argued and perhaps rightly so, that it would be normal that the moment there was a demand of dowry, the negotiator of the marriage who is so closely related to Maithil Rai (father of the victim girl) would have disclosed these facts to PW 2. According to PW 3 Maithil Rai, he spent the night in the house of PW 2, ten days prior to the occurrence when he was insulted and not allowed to meet his daughter and a demand was raised by the In-laws of the victim girl. It is strange that PW 3 does not disclose these facts to PW 2. In fact, PW 2 has not said a word regarding the demand of dowry in his evidence. It is strange that PW 3 does not disclose these facts to PW 2. In fact, PW 2 has not said a word regarding the demand of dowry in his evidence. According to this Court, the deposition of PW 2 is completely unbelievable as he had introduced a new story, which does not find place in the First Information Report or even before the Investigating Officer during the investigation. Attention of this witness has been drawn to the statement before the Investigating Officer regarding the version of the manner of occurrence. Attention has also been drawn to the fact that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that there was a demand of dowry. In this context, this Court will also examine the statement of PWs 3 and 4. PW 1 states that he came to know about the occurrence from Taleshwar Pandey and Ram Ratan Pandey (PW 2), whereas PWs 3 and 4 have tried to cover up the evidence led by PW 2 by disclosing that they heard about the occurrence from Taleshwar Pandey. Strangely enough, Taleshwar Pandey has not been examined at all perhaps for the reason that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 12. The next witness PW 3 who is the father of the victim girl claims that he came to the place of occurrence at about 9 AM. As per his statement given at paragraph 18. He cannot remember the date or year of the marriage which, according to the Counsel for the appellants, gives a blow to the case of the prosecution because they say that the marriage took place seven years prior to the occurrence. This Court is not impressed by this argument since the other witnesses have been more or less been able to prove that the marriage took place within seven years of the occurrence. Regarding the demand of dowry, it would appear that it was made for the first time when PW 3 went to visit his daughter i.e. ten days prior to the occurrence when he was not allowed to meet her and the demand was made. It may be noted that PW 3 neither approached the Police Station nor does he disclose to his close relative who lives in the same village i.e. PW 2 that a demand has been raised rather he simply returned home without any discussion regarding this fact. It may be noted that PW 3 neither approached the Police Station nor does he disclose to his close relative who lives in the same village i.e. PW 2 that a demand has been raised rather he simply returned home without any discussion regarding this fact. It has been argued that even if a demand is made then there must be some talks between a person making demand and the person from whom this demand has been made. It does not stand to reason that having made the demand, the person would be kicked out of the house. Moreover, it is argued that some time would be given to the father of Sunita Devi so that he could fulfill the demand. It is admitted by all the witnesses that there was no demand at the time of marriage and that the In-laws of Sunita Devi are better placed in life and have more property than the family of Sunita Devi. PW 3 accepts that he had only given a sum of Rs. 1,000/- at the time of marriage to his SAMADHI. He also admits that the father-in-law had gifted ornaments worth Rs. 20,000/- to his daughter-in-law at the time of marriage. Under such circumstances, the story of demand of dowry being made prior to the occurrence seems to fall flat on the face. Attention of PW 3 has been drawn to the statement made before the Investigating Officer as he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that he had received information from Taleshwary Pandey. Attention has also been drawn to the statement before the Investigating Officer as he had not stated that his daughter has burnt due to sprinkling of kerosene oil on her body by her In-laws. Attention has also been drawn to the statement that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that the occurrence took place due to demand of dowry. The evidence of PW 3, the father of the victim girl and his conduct is extremely strange and cannot be given credence in view of the fact that it is hardly the natural behavior of father in the circumstances and for the reasons stated above. 13. Again, the evidence of PW 4 clashes with the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 whom I will discuss presently. 14. 13. Again, the evidence of PW 4 clashes with the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 whom I will discuss presently. 14. PW 4 claims that he reached the place of occurrence and had given his fardbayan at 7 AM. When he reached the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer was already present there. Other villagers were also present and he moved out from the place of occurrence after giving his fardbayan. 15. The evidence of PW 4 if compared with the evidence of PW 1, gives a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution. According to PW 4, when he reached the place of occurrence, no other member of the family was present. According to PW 1, he was the first person to reach at the place of occurrence and he states that he has signed on the inquest report and therefore, his presence cannot be falsified. Both the witnesses do not support the presence of each other at the place of occurrence. PW 4 gets away by merely saying that he left after his fardbayan was recorded. It is strange that the inquest report indicates that it was prepared at 06:30 AM and yet PW 4 does not acknowledge the presence of PW 1. PW 1 states that he was examined by the Investigating Officer. It appears from the inquest report which unfortunately has not been proved as the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined that it was prepared at 06:30 AM. However, the signature of PW 1 on the inquest report has been proved by PW 1 who acknowledges that he signed on the document. The inquest report gives the Police Station Case number, which according to the Counsel for the appellant, indicates that the investigation had already commenced and fardbayan was recorded before the inquest report was prepared. This argument would have been effective if the Investigating Officer has been examined in this case as the defence could have shown that there was already a report regarding the occurrence by PW 1 and, therefore, the Police Station case number was recorded in the inquest report. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer, therefore, in the present case seriously causes prejudice to the defence. 16. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer, therefore, in the present case seriously causes prejudice to the defence. 16. Counsel for the appellants submits that the fardbayan of PW 4 should not be taken into consideration as it would be apparent that the inquest report could not have been prepared before the fardbayan was recorded. Once, investigation is taken up under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would mean that a case was instituted, although the formal institution may be later. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the First Information Report (Exhibit-5) was instituted at 10:30 AM on 17.10.1993 and sent to the Court on 18.10.1993 wherein it was received on 19.10.1993. Counsel for the appellants submits that there is inordinate delay in producing the First Information Report before the Court. It is submitted that this may be examined in the context of the evidence of PW 1 who had signed on the inquest report, but does not acknowledge the presence of the informant when the inquest report was prepared, although PW 4, the informant, specifically states that the body of Sunita Devi was sent for postmortem in his presence. This Court also finds that it is quite strange that the father and the son of the victim girl did not arrive at the place of occurrence together when they were both present at the house, when they heard of the death of Sunita Devi. Not only did the father stay back but the family of the victim girl did not receive the dead body for the purpose of performing the last rites. The documents on record would show that the dead body was handed over to the appellants, i.e. the father-in-law and the husband for the purposes of performing the last rites. All these facts lead this Court to doubt the prosecution case as presented by the witnesses. 17. This Court finds that although the inquest report is not proved but the entire gamut of facts as pointed out would lead to the conclusion that the prosecution has not come up with the correct version of the occurrence. There are many discrepancies in the evidence of all the witnesses both with regard to the cause of the death and the manner in which the First Information Report etc. has been recorded. In fact, the evidence regarding cruelty is certainly lacking in this case. 18. There are many discrepancies in the evidence of all the witnesses both with regard to the cause of the death and the manner in which the First Information Report etc. has been recorded. In fact, the evidence regarding cruelty is certainly lacking in this case. 18. In a case under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove as follows :- (i) The death of a woman must have been caused by burns or badly injured or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) Such death must have occurred within seven years of the marriage; (iii) Soon before her death, the woman must be subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives of her husband; (iv) Such cruelty or harassment must be caused in connection with the demand of dowry; (v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been made to the woman soon before her death. 19. Once the prosecution has been able to establish the aforesaid ingredients, the presumption against the accused starts as enjoined under Section 113 (b) of the Evidence Act. Of course, it is rebuttable and the onus lies against the persons whom the presumption lies to discharge it. In the present case, as pointed out above, the prosecution has failed to show that there was a demand or that before the death, the victim girl was subjected to harassment or cruelty. On the basis of the aforesaid weak evidence with respect to demand of dowry and lack of evidence with respect to cruelty and harassment along with the fact that PW 4, the informant and PW 1 contradicts each other on major issues regarding the presence of PW 1 at the time of preparation of the inquest report, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, this Court cannot hold that the appellants are guilty of the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubts. 20. In this context, reference have been made to the decisions in the cases of State of Rajasthan Vs. Teg Bahadur and Others [ 2004 (13) SCC 300 ], Narayanamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka and another [2008 (16) SCC 512], Shindo alias Sawinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab [ 2011 (3) SCC 394 ]. 20. In this context, reference have been made to the decisions in the cases of State of Rajasthan Vs. Teg Bahadur and Others [ 2004 (13) SCC 300 ], Narayanamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka and another [2008 (16) SCC 512], Shindo alias Sawinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab [ 2011 (3) SCC 394 ]. In all these cases, the Supreme Court has held “when one of the essential ingredients i.e. demand of dowry could not be established by the prosecution, the appellants cannot be convicted as the essential burden of proof would lie on the prosecution and would only shift to the accused/appellant if the essential ingredients are fulfilled”. 21. In the result, these two appeals are allowed and the sentences awarded against them by the Trial Court are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case.