Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1371 (JHR)

Ram Sewak Dangi v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2018-07-02

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 28.08.1996 and Order of sentence dated 31.08.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra, in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 1989, whereby, the appellants, have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 304-B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no sentence was passed for the offence under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It may be stated that the present appeal was also filed by the co-convicts, Bulak Mahto and Smt. Musni Devi, the parents-in law of the deceased, who were also convicted and sentenced along with these appellants, but during the pendency of this appeal, they died and accordingly, by order dated 14.06.2018, the appeal abated qua appellants Bulak Mahto and Smt. Musni Devi and their names have been deleted from the array of the appellants. The appellant Ram Sewak Dangi is the husband of the deceased, whereas, the appellants Ram Bilas Dangi and Munia Devi are the elder brother-in-law and the sister-in-law (nanad) respectively, of the deceased. 4. The prosecution case was lodged at the Itkhori Police Station by the informant, Kurhan Mahto on 18.8.1988 at about 5:00 A.M. in the morning, wherein he has stated that his daughter, Reshmi @ Meghni was married to the accused, Ram Sewak Dangi, the son of Bulak Mahto, about three years ago. It is alleged that Bulak Mahto and his family members started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry, for which, there was a panchayati also. They were subjecting his daughter to cruelty and torture, demanding that her parents’ land should be transferred in favour of the son-in-law. She was also turned out of the matrimonial house once. It is stated in the FIR that on the previous Sunday, Bulak Mahto came searching his daughter-in-law at the house of the informant, which raised suspicion in the mind of the informant that she was done to death and her dead body had been concealed. The informant with the help of some persons started searching his daughter. It is stated in the FIR that on the previous Sunday, Bulak Mahto came searching his daughter-in-law at the house of the informant, which raised suspicion in the mind of the informant that she was done to death and her dead body had been concealed. The informant with the help of some persons started searching his daughter. On 17.8.1988, he searched his daughter in a well situated behind the house of her in-laws’ place, where the dead body of the deceased was found tied with a big stone. Upon seeing this, the father-in-law of the deceased and his family members started fleeing away, but they were apprehended by the villagers. Thereafter, the informant went to the Police Station, where his statement was recorded, on the basis of which, Itkhori P.S Case No.68 of 1988, corresponding to G.R No.358 of 1988, was instituted for the offences under Sections 498A, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 304-B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence also. 6. P.W.-1 Kurhan Mahto is the informant and the father of the deceased. This witness has stated that Reshmi was his daughter, who was also known as Meghni. She was married to Ram Sewak Dangi, the son of Bulak Mahto, about four years ago. Thereafter, she went to her in-laws' place, where she was being subjected to cruelty and torture by her husband, father-in-law, elder brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. They were asking that the parents’ land should be transferred in favour of the son-in-law and then only, they would allow the deceased to live in her in–laws’ place. There was a panchayati also for the same. On a Sunday, Bulak Mahto came to the house of this witness searching his daughter–in-law, whereupon, this witness started searching his daughter. They were asking that the parents’ land should be transferred in favour of the son-in-law and then only, they would allow the deceased to live in her in–laws’ place. There was a panchayati also for the same. On a Sunday, Bulak Mahto came to the house of this witness searching his daughter–in-law, whereupon, this witness started searching his daughter. After 3-4 days at about 4:00 P.M, the dead body was found in a well, tied with a stone. Thereafter, he gave the information at Itkhori Police Station, where his statement was recorded, upon which, he had put his thumb impression. He has stated that the well, from which the dead body of his daughter was recovered, is situated at a distance of about 100 hands from the house of the accused. He has stated that his daughter had been done to death due to the demand of landed property. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination, wherein he has stated that the in-laws’ of his daughter are also his co-villagers, whose house is situated at a distance of about half kilometer from the house of this witness. This witness has stated that Reshmi was his only daughter and he has no son. He has three brothers, who are living separately. In his cross-examination, this witness has specifically stated that it was Ram Sewak Dangi, who had asked him to transfer the land in his favour and at that time, except the wife of this witness, no one else was present. He has again stated that after two years of the marriage, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry. He was cross-examined on the point of panchayati also, but that is not very relevant. He has also stated that the accused persons were not demanding any money, rather they were demanding only the land. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused Munia Devi, is the daughter of Bulak Mahto, and she was married in another village, but has stated that she was living at her parents' place from about two years prior to the occurrence. This witness has also stated that Bulak Mahto had also filed a case on him of putting his house to fire and committing theft, which is a false case. He has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused persons. 7. This witness has also stated that Bulak Mahto had also filed a case on him of putting his house to fire and committing theft, which is a false case. He has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused persons. 7. P.W.-5 Nagia Devi is the mother of the deceased. This witness has also supported the prosecution case, stating that her daughter, Reshmi was married to Ram Sewak Dangi about five years ago. She lived at her in-laws' place properly for about two years and thereafter, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law and they were demanding the landed property. Reshmi had also informed her that her in-laws’ were asking that the landed property of her parents’ should be transferred to them and when the land was not transferred, they turned out her daughter from her matrimonial home and thereafter, there was a panchayati also. After panchayati, she was taken to the matrimonial home, but again, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture. Thereafter, her father-in-law, Bulak Mahto informed that Reshmi was missing from her in-laws’ place and thereafter, search was made for her. This witness has stated that upon pressure, the father-in-law admitted to have killed the deceased and to have thrown her dead body in the well. The dead body was searched in the well and it was taken out from the well, which was tied with a stone, weighing about 35 Kg. Thereafter, the police was informed. She has also identified the accused persons in the Court. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that about two years ago, she learnt that her daughter was being subjected to cruelty and torture and she was informed about that by her daughter herself. This witness has also admitted in her cross-examination that it was her son-in-law, who was pressurizing for transferring the land in his favour. She has admitted in her cross-examination that the accused Munia Devi, was married prior to the occurrence, but she was living at her parents' place. She has denied the suggestion that her agnates were against them, for the fact that they were to transfer the land in favour of her daughter. She has also denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused persons. 8. She has denied the suggestion that her agnates were against them, for the fact that they were to transfer the land in favour of her daughter. She has also denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused persons. 8. P.W.-2 Naresh Sao and P.W.-3 Rajendra Dangi have also supported the prosecution case and they have also stated about the panchayati, which was held between the parties. These witnesses had stated that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture by the accused persons for the demand of land in dowry, which fact they learnt in the panchayati. Subsequently, it was informed that the deceased was missing from her in-laws' place, and when she was searched, her dead body was found in a well, tied with a big stone. 9. P.W.-4 is Dr. Murli Manohar Sengupta, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18.8.1988 and had found the followings- (i) Rigor mortis absent in all the four limbs. Body was decomposed and swollen. Skin Pealed off over chest, abdomen and limbs. Tongue protruded and eye seems to protruded from its socket. Rectum protruded. Hairs loosened. (ii) Brain matters liquidated due to decomposition. (iii) Mucus membrane of stomach congested and contains greyish material. (iv) Mucus membrane of larynx and trachea congested. (v) Both lungs edematous, on cutting section exudes dark blood. (vi) Liver, Spleen, Kidney, all congested. This witness has stated that the death was due to respiratory failure which was due to the suspected poisoning. The exact nature of poison may be detected by chemical analysis of Viscera. He has proved the postmortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-1. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the viscera report was not before him and in absence of viscera report, he could not say definitely that the death was caused due to the poisoning. 10. P.W.-6 Sita Sharan Singh is the I.O of the case. He has stated that on 18.8.1988, he was posted as the A.S.I at Itkhori Police Station. At 4.45 A.M in the morning, Bulak Mahto came at the Police Station and gave his statement, which he had recorded. He has proved the FIR to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit -2. He has stated that on 18.8.1988, he was posted as the A.S.I at Itkhori Police Station. At 4.45 A.M in the morning, Bulak Mahto came at the Police Station and gave his statement, which he had recorded. He has proved the FIR to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit -2. He went to the place of occurrence, where the dead body was taken out from the well and he had prepared the inquest report of the dead body and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He has given the details of the two place of occurrence. The first place of occurrence is the house of the accused, where he found the bed scattered in the room. The second place of occurrence is the well, from where the dead body was recovered, which was at a distance of about 125 yards from the house of the accused. The well was full of water. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He has proved the inquest report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-3. He received the postmortem report and submitted the charge-sheet in the case. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seized the bed which was found scattered in the house of the accused and he has also not mentioned the details therein. He has denied the suggestion to making faulty investigation. 11. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused persons have denied the evidence against them. 12. The defence has also examined one witness, who is D.W.-1 Sukhdeo Dangi. This witness had stated that the deceased was being properly kept at her in-laws’ place. The deceased was the only daughter of Kurhan Mahto and since the informant wanted to transfer his property in favour of his daughter, his agnates were against him. 13. On the basis of the evidence on record, all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that only omnibus allegation has been levelled against all the family members of the accused and even the married sister-in-law was not spared. As such, the evidence of the witnesses is not reliable. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that since similar evidence is there against all the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.-1 Kurhan Mahto as well as P.W.-5 Nagia Devi, who are the parents of the deceased, have specifically stated that the demand of land was made only by the son-in-law. Learned counsel submitted that though P.W.-1 Kurhan Mahto as well as P.W.-5 Nagia Devi have denied the suggestion that their agnates were against them due to the fact that they wanted to transfer their land in favour of their only daughter, but this fact is proved by defence witness D.W.-1 Sukhdeo Dangi, who has stated that since the informant wanted to transfer his property in favour of his only daughter, his agnates were against him. As such, the fact that the deceased was done to death by one of his agnates, and the dead body was thrown in the well, cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. 15. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention towards the Judgment of this Court in Suresh Yadav & Anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand, reported in 2011 (1) JLJR 267 and Sushil Gope Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2011 (4) JLJR 52 , wherein where, it was found that the accused had served sufficient sentences for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, their sentences were reduced to the period already undergone. Vs. the State of Jharkhand, reported in 2011 (1) JLJR 267 and Sushil Gope Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2011 (4) JLJR 52 , wherein where, it was found that the accused had served sufficient sentences for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, their sentences were reduced to the period already undergone. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel alternatively submitted that at best the offence may be said to be made out only against the appellant Ram Sewak Dangi, the husband of the deceased, who has remained in custody for about six years, and accordingly, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 16. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against all the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, as P.W.-1 Kurhan Mahto , P.W.-2 Naresh Sao, P.W.-3 Rajendra Dangi and P.W.-5 Nagia Devi have fully supported the prosecution case, stating that the deceased was married to the accused, Ram Sewak Dangi about three years prior to the occurrence and after two years of her marriage, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry. The accused persons were asking that the lands be transferred in favour of the son-in-law and for that, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the deceased was first murdered by the accused persons and her dead body was thrown in the well, which is apparent from the fact that the dead body was found tied with a stone. Their ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-4 is Dr. Murli Manohar Sengupta, who has found the death caused due to suspected poisoning. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence. 17. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the deceased was married to the appellant Ram Sewak Dangi about three years prior to the occurrence. It has come in the evidence that for about two years, she was living peacefully at her in-laws’ place. It has come in the evidence that for about two years, she was living peacefully at her in-laws’ place. Thereafter, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry by all the accused persons. Though it is a fact that there is allegation against all the family members of Ram Sewak Dangi to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and torture, but in the cross-examinations of P.W.-1 Kurhan Mahto and P.W.-5 Nagia Devi, who are the parents of the deceased, the defence has been able to extract the very important fact that the demand of dowry was made only by Ram Sewak Dangi, as only he was asking for transfer of land in his favour. We also find that it has come in the evidence of both P.W.-1 Kurhan Mahto and P.W.-5 Nagia Devi that the appellant, Munia Devi was already married prior to the occurrence. 18. We are of the considered view that since it has come in the cross-examinations of P.W.-1 Kurhan Mahto and P.W.-5 Nagia Devi, being the parents of the deceased, that the demand of dowry was being made by Ram Sewak Dangi only, the other appellants, Ram Bilas Dangi and Munia Devi are entitled to the benefits of doubt, even though there is omnibus allegation of subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture against them also. So far as the appellant Ram Sewak Dangi is concerned, there is specific evidence against him that he being the husband of the deceased, he used to subject the deceased to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry, asking his parents-in-law to transfer their land in his favour. The marriage had taken place about three years prior to the occurrence and the deceased had died an unnatural death. There is evidence that soon before her death there was a panchayati, for the said dispute, where after the deceased was taken back to her in-laws' place, and soon after that it was said that she was missing from the house of her in-laws, and after search, her decomposed dead body was found in the well, tied with stone. As such the offence is clearly made out against the husband under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 19. As such the offence is clearly made out against the husband under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 19. In view of the discussions made above, we find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant No.1 Ram Sewak Dangi, who is the husband of the deceased, beyond all reasonable doubts, but has failed to prove the charges against the remaining appellants Ram Bilas Dangi and Munia Devi, the elder brother-in-law and the sister-in-law (nanad) respectively, of the deceased. 20. We, however, do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the appellant Ram Sewak Dangi should be awarded lesser punishment for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The dead body of the deceased was found from a well, tied with a stone. The inquest report of the dead body, proved as Exhibit-3, also proves this fact. This completely excludes the possibility of committing suicide by the deceased and it appears that after causing her death, the deceased was thrown in a well with the dead body tied with stone, so that the body may not be found afloat in the water. In that view of the matter, there is no question for awarding any lesser punishment to the appellant, Ram Sewak Dangi, except the imprisonment for life. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 28.08.1996 and Order of sentence dated 31.08.1996, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra, in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 1989, so far as they relate to the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Ram Sewak Dangi, are hereby, affirmed, but the same qua other appellants Ram Bilas Dangi and Munia Devi, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the appellants Ram Bilas Dangi and Munia Devi are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. All the appellants are on bail. The bail of the Appellant Ram Sewak Dangi is hereby cancelled, and he is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith, to serve out the sentence. The Court below is also directed to issue process forthwith, compelling the production/surrender of the appellant Ram Sewak Dangi, for serving out the sentence. All the appellants are on bail. The bail of the Appellant Ram Sewak Dangi is hereby cancelled, and he is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith, to serve out the sentence. The Court below is also directed to issue process forthwith, compelling the production/surrender of the appellant Ram Sewak Dangi, for serving out the sentence. The appellants Ram Bilas Dangi and Munia Devi are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 22. This appeal is accordingly, allowed in part. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.