Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 420 (PAT)

Ram Swaroop Prasad v. State of Bihar

2013-03-22

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT (ORAL) Smt. S.A. Khan, J. 1. The two appellants namely Ram Swaroop Prasad who is the father-in-law of the victim girl and Udai Kant Prabhakar who is the husband of the victim girl have been found guilty by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda by his judgment dated 6.1.2001 for the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 2 years. Respectively, for the said offences. 2. The case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Satish Chandra Sen, father of the victim girl namely, Pinki Kumari who was married in the year 1997 to Udai Kant. She went to her husband's house on 6.2.98. She returned to her father's home to attend the wedding of her sister alongwith her sister-in-law (nanad) and brother-in-law (devar). At this stage she disclosed that there was a demand and her husband made a complaint that he was not given the entire dowry amount. They demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and a colour TV and Hero Honda motorcycle. The informant could not fulfil the demand and as such they left Pinki Kumari with her father to return to their home. The FIR discloses that eventually Pinki Kumari went to her husband's house. after about 15 days the informant went to meet her and again there was a demand by the father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband. It is said that they threatened the informant with dire consequences if they did not fulfil the demand. At the time of festival of Raksha Bandhan, Jitendra Kumar, uncle (step-mama of the girl), alongwith one Shailendra Kumar went to the house of Pinki Kumari on 13.8.98 where they learnt that she had died. When they reached the matrimonial home of Pinki Kumari they called the informant to tell him that his daughter had been killed and her body had been removed by the accused persons. The informant tried to find out the manner in which she had died but could not do so. They lodged the FIR on the ground that the daughter had been done to death because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. 3. The defence of the accused persons is that Pinki Devi died due to a snake-bite. The informant and other family members tried to get her treated by the local doctor (ojha). They lodged the FIR on the ground that the daughter had been done to death because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. 3. The defence of the accused persons is that Pinki Devi died due to a snake-bite. The informant and other family members tried to get her treated by the local doctor (ojha). However, she succumbed to the poison and died. In support of this defence has produced two witnesses as well as certain, letters written by the deceased to her husband to show that there was a cordial relationship between them. 4. Thirteen witnesses have been examined in this case, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 8 the independent witnesses from the village where the occurrence took place did not support the prosecution case as such they have been declared hostile. PW 13 is a formal witness who has proved the protest petition filed by the informant and the vakalatnama executed by the informant. Thus the case is based on the evidence of PW 5, PW 6, PW 7, PW 9 and PW 10. There are two I.Os. in this case who are PW 11 and PW 12. 5. There is no doubt about the fact that Pinki Devi died in abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. This Court has to examine the evidence in order to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that Pinki Devi was killed because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry? 6. PW 5 is supposedly an independent witness. He states that he heard about the occurrence and went to the house of the accused and saw the body of Pinki Devi and thereafter went home. He claims that he heard some gossip in the village that Pinki Devi had been poisoned. He had not been examined by the police during the investigation. Therefore, this Court cannot give much importance to his evidence and he has come for the first time to make the statement aforesaid. 7. PW 6 Shailendra Kumar Prabhakar appears to be a stranger to the family. He claims that he went to the house of Pinki Devi alongwith Jitendra Kumar uncle (mama) of the victim girl on 13.8.98 where he learnt about her death. On a perusal of the evidence of this witness. it would appear that he has stated that he is working as Junior Engineer in Sonepur. He claims that he went to the house of Pinki Devi alongwith Jitendra Kumar uncle (mama) of the victim girl on 13.8.98 where he learnt about her death. On a perusal of the evidence of this witness. it would appear that he has stated that he is working as Junior Engineer in Sonepur. He has no land or property in Rajgir where Pinki Devi lived. He has also not stated that he had ever heard from anyone that there was a demand of dowry although he claims to be quite close to the family of Pinki Devi but it appears that he only visited their house once. Regarding the manner of death this witness has not stated anything except to say that the family members told him that Pinki Devi had been killed. In the circumstances, this Court finds that this witness has not been able to support the case where there was a demand of dowry. His presence at Rajgir is completely unexplained as he had no occasion to visit Rajgir at the relevant time although it appears that now he is posted at Rajgir. Therefore, this Court would reject the evidence of PW 6 Shailendra Prabhakar. 8. PW 7 Jitendra Kumar is the brother of the second wife of the informant. The deceased is daughter of the first wife. According to this witness. he had gone to the house of Pinki Devi on 13.8.98. When he reached her place he claims to have learnt that Pinki Devi had died as she was administered poison. During cross-examination. it would appear that he has specifically stated that he had told the I.O. that the in-laws had disclosed that Pinki Devi had died due to snake-bite. According to him. he was present, when there was a demand of dowry although he does not remember the date or even the facts as to how and in what circumstance the demand was made. He has stated that he did not take any steps to find out from the villagers regarding the circumstances of the death and the manner in which the body had been disposed of. It is apparent that this witness can only be considered for the purpose of concluding that the informant learnt of the occurrence through him as he had visited the house of Pinki Devi and learnt about her death. It is apparent that this witness can only be considered for the purpose of concluding that the informant learnt of the occurrence through him as he had visited the house of Pinki Devi and learnt about her death. The witness has not disclosed any fact which would indicate that he derived any knowledge regarding the circumstances of the death of Pinki Devi nor can he be relied upon for the purpose of proving that there was a demand of dowry or that Pinki Devi was tortured because of the non-fulfilment of the said demand. 9. PW 9 Tanuja Devi is the step mother of the deceased Pinki Devi. She disclosed that her husband is a Junior Engineer and is posted in Sonepur. She disclosed that Pinki Devi was married in 1987 and left for her matrimonial home on 6.2.98. She also supports the FIR that Pinki Devi had come to the house of her parents to attend the marriage of her sister on 6.5.98 with her sister-in-law and brother-in-law. It is alleged by her that it was at this time that Pinki Devi had disclosed that she was being ill-treated in her husband's house. She has supported the prosecution case in her chief and has stated that there was a demand and that her daughter is said to have revealed that she was being ill-treated by her in-laws. The defence has tried to show that this witness has not stated the truth by questioning her regarding the year of her marriage which she could not remember. She does not remember the date of birth of her two children. She admits that Pinki Devi had received education till Intermediate standard. She denies that the appellant had informed them regarding the death of their daughter Pinki Devi. She denies that there a phone call from the In Laws' place which was received by Kanchan Bala, the sister of the deceased, who advised them to bury her sister as the informant was at Sonepur at the relevant time. She claims that she learnt about the cause of death, from the people of the village, without disclosing the name of any specific person. This witness has also stated that she is not aware that the aunt (mousi) lived nearby to the house of Pinki Devi. Surprisingly the mousi had not come forward to support the prosecution version. She claims that she learnt about the cause of death, from the people of the village, without disclosing the name of any specific person. This witness has also stated that she is not aware that the aunt (mousi) lived nearby to the house of Pinki Devi. Surprisingly the mousi had not come forward to support the prosecution version. She denies that she had stated before the I.O. that Pinki Devi was killed by her in-laws by administering poison. She also denies that she had stated before the I.O. that Pinki Devi died because of snake-bite. 10. Satish Chandra who was been examined as PW 10 is the only other witness on the point of occurrence. He is the father of the deceased. He supports the prosecution case and in his chief he has tried to make out a case that the police had not recorded the correct statement in the FIR. According to the informant, the I.O. had not recorded that his daughter had died of poisoning. It is denied that he had stated before the police in his further statement that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- for payment of admission fee to be incurred by the in-laws for admitting Pinki Devi in Para Medical course and on failure to make the payment of the said amount of Rs.50,000/-. there was a demand of compensation by making a demand of colour TV and a Hero Honda motorcycle. This witness admits that he had not filed the protest after lodging the FIR that the police had not recorded the statement aforesaid. A case has been made by this witness that there was one Sidheshwar Prasad who had actually witnessed the accused persons assaulting his daughter which was supposedly done by pressing her neck. Apart from the aforesaid fact. no other evidence of importance has been led by this witness. This witness denies that the letters which have been marked as Ext.X and Ext.X/1 were written by Pinki Devi to her husband which would show that Pinki Devi and her husband had very good and intimate relationship with each other. 11. Lastly this Court will refer to the evidence of the I.O. which is very important as it discloses that the prosecution has built up a case of dowry death as an afterthought. With respect to Shailendra Kumar Prabhakar. 11. Lastly this Court will refer to the evidence of the I.O. which is very important as it discloses that the prosecution has built up a case of dowry death as an afterthought. With respect to Shailendra Kumar Prabhakar. PW 6 the I.O. has stated that he had not disclosed anything about dowry. He had also not said that he knew the informant previously. According to him, Shailendra had stated that he learnt from the family members of the deceased that she had died due to snake-bite. In this manner the I.O. has dislodged the evidence of PW 6. PW 9 Tanuja Devi had specifically stated that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- for the purposes of getting the girl admitted as a Para Medical student. On non-payment of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- the appellants had asked for a colour TV and a Hero Honda motorcycle. She did not disclose to the I.O. that there was any demand of dowry at the time of 'vidai’. This witness has also not disclosed that Satendra Kumar and Jitendra Kumar had told her that her daughter had died because administration of poison. Similarly the informant has also given his evidence in the same vein by stating that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- for admission of Pinki Devi as a Para Medical student. The informant had not stated before the I.O. that his daughter was ill-treated or that he was threatened by the appellants with dire consequences if he did not pay the dowry amount. It had come during the evidence before the Police that the informant had not disclosed that Sidheshwar had gone to the house of Pinki Devi and had seen the family members pressing her neck. 12. On a perusal of the evidence of witnesses and the I.O. it is apparent that they have not been able to make out a case of demand of dowry or torture. The FIR had been instituted after more than 24 hours which would give them ample time to make any improvement regarding the occurrence beside which the witnesses have indulged in speculation. inasmuch according to some the girl died due to poison. whereas according to others she died because she was assaulted by pressing her neck. Therefore, the prosecution is trying to make out a cause of dowry death by changing the version of the occurrence. inasmuch according to some the girl died due to poison. whereas according to others she died because she was assaulted by pressing her neck. Therefore, the prosecution is trying to make out a cause of dowry death by changing the version of the occurrence. The fact that almost all the witnesses have stated before the I.O. that there was no demand of dowry rather a demand of Rs.50,000/- was made for the purpose of allowing the deceased to pursue her studies which would have been to the benefit of Pinki Devi. it appears that this is a case whereafter untimely death of the girl a case has been introduced claiming that there was a demand of dowry which is contrary to the evidence during investigation and what has been stated in Court. These facts create doubt regarding the prosecution version and as such this Court acquits the appellants giving them benefit of doubt. They shall be discharged of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.