Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1333 (PAT)

Shubh Narain Mishra v. State of Bihar

2013-11-25

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. - The appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 304-B, IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years as also under Section 498-A and 201, IPC and sentenced to RI for three years and two years respectively and he has further been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which further RI for one year. The appellant No. 2 has also been convicted under Section 304-B, IPC but sentenced to RI for seven years and no separate sentence has been passed under Sections 201 and 498-A, IPC by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 317/95/5/01 by judgment and order dated 16.3.2002. 2. The case of the Informant, PW 4, Shailendra Kumar Jha is that his sister was married to appellant No.2 in June, 1987 and killed by her in-laws on 27/28.2.1994 for reasons of non-fulfilment of dowry. 3. During trial the prosecution examined four witnesses out of whom PW 4, informant, Shailendra Kumar Jha and PW 6, Anup Lal Jha are the brother and father of the deceased respectively. PW 1, Nagendra Choudhary and PW 2, Dhrub Narain Jha who were co-villagers of the appellant have been declared hostile. PW 3, Namonath Chaudhary was tendered whereas PW 5, Jitendra Jha is a formal witness. 4. During trial the father of the deceased i.e. PW 6 stated in cross-examination that his daughter was not tortured by the in-laws during her stay in the matrimonial home. 5. The Prosecution has not brought on record any expert opinion with regard to the cause of death of the deceased. 6. The submission of the appellant is that since the defence had examined some witnesses as also documents to show that the deceased was ailing and she had died on account of ailment they had discharged their duty that the death was not connected with demands of dowry. In absence of any positive evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution that the death was un-natural and connected to ends of dowry the prosecution case is not fit to be relied upon. 7. On going through the evidence of PW 4, the Informant, I find that during evidence he has supported the fact that his sister was married in the year 1987 with the appellant whereas occurrence took place in the year 1994. 7. On going through the evidence of PW 4, the Informant, I find that during evidence he has supported the fact that his sister was married in the year 1987 with the appellant whereas occurrence took place in the year 1994. It is difficult to believe that for such a long period of seven years there would be consistent demands of dowry and death would be caused on account of this non-fulfilment. Moreover, the father of the deceased having positively stated that his daughter had not been tortured for ends of dowry, the Prosecution case is not fit to be relied upon. 8. Also, in absence of any positive evidence that the death was un-natural it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the appellants. Hence, giving them benefit of doubt, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 16.3.2002 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in S.Tr. No. 317/95/5/01 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.