Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 12 (JHR)

Awdhesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-04

R.R.PRASAD, RAVI NATH VERMA

body2016
Order : This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.3.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 261 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the trial court having found that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients of section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, has acquitted the respondents no. 2 and 3. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Daisy (victim), the daughter of the informant Awadhesh Singh (PW6) had been married to one Shailesh Rai, respondent no.2. During marriage, dowry was given by the informant as per his capacity. After marriage everything was normal for one year, but thereafter, the accused persons started subjecting Daisy (the deceased) to torture on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. The informant gave Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) to the father in law of the deceased, so that she be not subjected to torture. In course of time, a baby girl was born in the year 2009 out of the wedlock of the deceased Daisy and her husband Shailesh Rai. Further case is that after the birth of the baby girl, accused persons started subjecting Daisy to torture more vigorously. This was informed by the deceased to her parents telephonically. On 5.6.2012, accused Shailesh Rai informed that Anushka, the daughter of the deceased is not well. On getting information, the informant came to her daughter's house where an unknown person informed him that her daughter Daisy and Anushka have been murdered at 6.30 a.m. and they are being cremated. On getting the information, when the informant and other relatives came to the cremation ghat, they found Daisy and Anushka completely burnt. 3. On such accusation, case was lodged which was registered under sections 304 B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was taken up for investigation during which statements of several persons were recorded. 4. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused and cognizance of the offence as aforesaid, was taken. When the case was committed to the court of sessions, the accused persons were put on trial during which the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. 4. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused and cognizance of the offence as aforesaid, was taken. When the case was committed to the court of sessions, the accused persons were put on trial during which the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. On closure of the prosecution case, when the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons were put under section 313 Cr.P.C they denied it. 5. There upon, the trial court having found that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of dowry and also the fact that the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of non fulfilment of demand of dowry, acquitted the accused persons of all the charges vide the judgment dated 27.3.2015 which is under challenge in this acquittal appeal. 6. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the informant appellant submits that the accused persons without informing the parents or members of the deceased family about the death of Daisy and her daughter Anushka cremated their dead bodies and this creates strong suspicion against the accused persons/respondents in this appeal, but the trial court has not taken into account this vital aspect of the matter and thereby committed illegality in recording the order of acquittal against the accused persons. Further, it was submitted that admittedly, death was not natural, rather unnatural. 7. Having heard counsel for the appellant and the State, we do find that the prosecution in order to prove the charge did examine seven witnesses. Of them,PW1 is silent over the matter relating to demand of dowry, whereas PW2, though has spoken about the demand, but is silent as to what sort of demand was made. Further we do find that he is also silent on the point of infliction of harassment /torture to the deceased on account of non fulfilment of the demand of dowry. PWs 3, 4 and 5 all related to the deceased, have not stated anything about the demand of dowry or subjection to harassment to the deceased. PW6 who happens to be the father of the deceased has simply stated about the payment of Rs 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand ) towards the balance amount, but he never spoke that the said sum of rupees twenty thousand had been paid as the balance amount of the dowry already given. PW6 who happens to be the father of the deceased has simply stated about the payment of Rs 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand ) towards the balance amount, but he never spoke that the said sum of rupees twenty thousand had been paid as the balance amount of the dowry already given. Further, he is also silent on the point of harassment to the deceased. PW7 though speaks about the deceased being harassed by the accused persons, but the court below has disbelieved his testimony as he never appeared to the trial court as a natural witness on the point of demand of dowry and his version relating to harassment remains uncorroborated. Under the circumstances, we do find that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients constituting offence under section 304B IPC relating to the demand of dowry and subjection to harassment/torture to the deceased on account of non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry. In that event, the submission advance on behalf of the appellant with respect to the information being not given by the accused to the parents of the deceased hardly cuts any ice. Under such situation, we do not find any illegality in the order under which the accused persons have been acquitted. Thus this acquittal appeal is accordingly dismissed. IA No. 4186 of 2015 also stands dismissed.