Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1394 (JHR)

Murat Ravidas v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2018-07-03

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 16.01.1996 and Order of sentence dated 17.01.1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1994, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for two years each for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It may be stated that originally there were six appellants in this appeal, but during the pendency of the appeal two of the appellants, namely, Ganesh Ravidas and Niria Devi, who were the elder brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, of the deceased, died and accordingly, this appeal abated with respect to them and their names were deleted from the array of appellants. The appeal thus continued only against the aforesaid four appellants, amongst whom, Murat Ravidas and Balo Ravidas are the brothers-in-law (devars) of the deceased and Meena Devi and Fulwa Devi are the sisters-in-law (gotnis) of the deceased. The husband and father-in-law of the deceased were not made accused in the case. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Giro Ravidas, who is the uncle of the deceased, recorded on 10.03.1993 at village Remba, P.S. Hirodih, District Gridih. The informant has stated that his niece Jahiri Devi was married to Mangar Das, son of Lembo Das about four years ago. Her father had died long ago, her mother was alive and her family was being looked after by him. After the marriage his niece lived at her in-laws’ place for some years properly. About seven months ago, her niece had come to her parents’ place and had informed that her in-laws were demanding money and she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the said demand. It is stated in the fardbeyan that his niece had informed him that her mother-in-law, husband, and the brothers-in-law were subjecting her to cruelty and torture for said demand of money. It is stated in the fardbeyan that his niece had informed him that her mother-in-law, husband, and the brothers-in-law were subjecting her to cruelty and torture for said demand of money. Upon getting the information, the informant came to her in-laws’ place to settle the matter and the matter was also settled. After living at her parents’ place for about one month his niece went back to her in-laws’ place and she was also blessed with a daughter. On 10.03.1993, the brother-in-law and cousin-in-law of the deceased came and informed that his niece was missing from the house, whereupon they went to her in-laws’ place, where they were informed that she was missing from the previous evening. They tried to search the victim in the ponds and wells, but the in-laws present there objected and told them that she was not of such nature that she would commit suicide. Still, the informant searched his niece in the nearby well and found the dead body in the well, and thereafter the police was informed. In the F.I.R., it is stated that the father-in-law and the husband of the deceased were not involved in the offence, as they were living at Kolkata. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Hirodih P.S. Case No. 21 of 1993, corresponding to G.R. No. 379 of 1993, was instituted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 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 the accused persons for the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accuseds’ pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution, out of whom P.W.-7 Mahadeo Turi, P.W.-8 Lakhpat Turi and P.W.-10 Hukum Turi were only tendered by the prosecution. 6. P.W.-5 Giro Ravidas is the informant in the case and the uncle of the deceased. This witness has supported the prosecution case stating that the deceased was his niece and her father had died long ago in the childhood of the deceased, as such, she was looked after and married by this witness. 6. P.W.-5 Giro Ravidas is the informant in the case and the uncle of the deceased. This witness has supported the prosecution case stating that the deceased was his niece and her father had died long ago in the childhood of the deceased, as such, she was looked after and married by this witness. The deceased was married in the year 1989 to Mangar Ravidas and at the time of marriage, dowry was given, out of which Rs. 5,000/- remained as balance to be paid, which he could not pay. After marriage his niece started living at her in-laws’ place and she lived there properly for more than two years, thereafter the accused persons started assaulting her for balance amount of the dowry, which this witness had not paid. About seven months prior to the occurrence, his niece had come to her parents’ place where she had informed her mother and this witness that her in-laws were assaulting her for the demand of dowry. This witness has again stated that his son-in-law Mangar Ravidas came and took away the deceased alongwith him with a promise that the deceased would be kept properly. In the month of Falgun 1993, Murat Ravidas and Binod Ravidas came to his house and informed that his niece was missing from the house, whereupon, they went to her in-laws’ village and inquired whether she had died by drowning in any well or pond, but the in-laws told them that she was not of that nature. Still the informant searched the deceased in the well near the house, and the dead body was found in the well. Thereafter, the police was informed, which came to the place of occurrence and recorded his statement, upon which he had put his thumb impression. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that his Samdhi and son-in-law were living at Kolkata from before the occurrence, where they were in service, and they were not at the village even at the time of occurrence. He has stated that after marriage there was no demand for the balance dowry amount from him for about two and half years. He has denied the suggestion that his niece wanted to go and live with her husband at Kolkata, but since she was not taken to Kolkata, she had committed suicide. He has stated that after marriage there was no demand for the balance dowry amount from him for about two and half years. He has denied the suggestion that his niece wanted to go and live with her husband at Kolkata, but since she was not taken to Kolkata, she had committed suicide. He has also denied the suggestion of falsely implicating the accused persons. 7. P.W.-1 Kamlesh Das and P.W.-2 Gopal Das are the cousins of the deceased and P.W.-4 Krishna Das is a co-villager, and these witnesses have also supported the prosecution case as stated by the informant. These witnesses had gone to the place of occurrence and the dead body was recovered in their presence. P.W.-2 Gopal Das, the son of the informant, has stated that the accused persons, including the father-in-law, were subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. P.W.-2 has also admitted in his cross-examination that the demand of dowry was made by the husband Mangar Das, but no case was lodged against him. These witnesses have also denied the suggestion that the deceased wanted to go to Kolkata alongwith her husband and when she was not taken there, she had committed suicide. 8. P.W.-6 Magan Turi and P.W.-9 Durga Ram are the witnesses to the inquest report. P.W.-6 Magan Turi had put his thumb impression on the inquest report and P.W.-9 Durga Ram had put his signature on the inquest report, which he has proved, and the same was marked Ext.2. Both these witnesses in their cross-examination have admitted that the deceased wanted to go to Kolkata along with her husband, and as she was not taken to Kolkata, she used to remain depressed. 9. P.W.-3 is Dr. Bhupendra Prasad Singh, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 11.03.1993 and had found the following :- Rigour-mortis was present in the lower extremity. The face was pale, teeth intact, tongue in between the teeth. Conjunctiva congested. Blood stain froth at mouth and nostril was present. Injury no.(i). Scratch on upper lip left side ¼” x ¼” underline tissue at the site of the injury was ecchymosed. On dissection subcutaneous tissue in neck-NAD. Mucous membrance of larynx and trachea red and congested. Hyoid bone intact. Lungs congested and oedematous. Heart contained blood right side and left side empty. Injury no.(i). Scratch on upper lip left side ¼” x ¼” underline tissue at the site of the injury was ecchymosed. On dissection subcutaneous tissue in neck-NAD. Mucous membrance of larynx and trachea red and congested. Hyoid bone intact. Lungs congested and oedematous. Heart contained blood right side and left side empty. Stomach contained undigested food stuff like rice and pulses (full diet) and its mucous membrane was normal. No peculiar smell from the stomach contents was found. Liver spleen and kidney congested. Urinary bladder empty. Uterus normal size (non-gravied). Vagina NAD. Skull intact. Brain-NAD. This witness has stated that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and definite cause of death could not be ascertained during the P.M. examination, hence the viscera was preserved. He had identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-1. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the injury found on the dead body of the deceased could be caused due to sudden fall in a well and was not at all sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. 10. P.W.-11 Satyendra Narayan Singh is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 10.03.1993 he was posted as the Officer-Incharge of Hirodih Police Station. He recorded the fardbeyan of the informant which he has proved and the same was marked Ext.3. He has also proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked Ext.4. He has stated that he recorded the restatement of the informant and the statements of the other witnesses. He prepared the inquest report which he has proved, and the same was marked Ext. 2/1. He has stated that the well, in which the dead body was found, was containing 25 feet water and he did not find any other important thing during his inspection of the place of occurrence. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and after getting the post-mortem report, he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had found the dead body in the house of the accused persons, and he has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 11. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, they have denied the evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 12. 11. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, they have denied the evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 12. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court below has found the accused persons guilty, and convicted and sentenced them for the offences as aforesaid 13. 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, in view of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, in as much as, the husband and father-in-law have not been made accused in the case, even though it has come in the evidence of P.W.-2 Gopal Das that the demand of money was being made by Mangar Das, the husband of the deceased, and it has also come in his evidence that the deceased had levelled the allegation against her father-in-law also. It is submitted by learned counsel that in spite of this evidence on record, both the husband and the father-in-law have not been made accused and the informant has stated that they had not committed any offence, as they were living in Kolkata. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Bhupendra Prasad Singh and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-1, clearly show that no injury was found on the dead body of the deceased and the minor injury that was found was said to be possible by fall in the well and was not at all sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. It is also admitted by him that that no definite cause of death could be ascertained. It is also submitted that though the viscera was preserved, but there is no evidence of any forensic examination of the viscera. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution case is full of doubts and the appellants were entitled to the benefits of doubt. 14. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that only the convicted accused persons were present in the house when the occurrence had taken place. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution case is full of doubts and the appellants were entitled to the benefits of doubt. 14. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that only the convicted accused persons were present in the house when the occurrence had taken place. Learned counsel submitted that there is specific allegation against these appellants to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and torture for demand of the balance amount of dowry and the evidence of the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination would show that the deceased had died an unnatural death, though the cause of death could not be ascertained. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was done to death within five years from her marriage. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that as the dead body of the deceased was found in the well near the house of the accused persons, the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly made out against the accused persons. 15. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that in the F.I.R., it is clearly alleged that when the deceased had come to her parents’ place about seven months ago, she had informed that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry by her mother-in-law, husband and other in-laws. P.W.-2 Gopal Das, who is the son of the informant, has also stated that she used to make allegations against her father-in-law also. He has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that the demand for dowry was being made by her husband Mangar Das. Still, the claim of the informant that the husband and father-in-law were not involved in the offence, makes the entire prosecution case very doubtful. We also find from the record that though in the F.I.R. it is stated that the mother of the deceased was alive and P.W.-5 Giro Ravidas, the informant, in his evidence has also stated that when the deceased had come to her parents’ place, she had informed her mother about the alleged ill-treatment at her in-laws’ house, but the mother has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. The witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case, have denied the suggestion that the deceased might have committed suicide as she wanted to go to Kolkata along with her husband, but the two witnesses namely, P.W.-6 Magan Turi and P.W.-9 Durga Ram, who are the witnesses to the inquest report, have clearly stated that the deceased used to remain depressed due to the fact that she was not allowed to go to Kolkata along with her husband. We also find that in the post-mortem examination no definite cause for death could be ascertained by P.W.-3 Dr. Bhupendra Prasad Singh, and even though the viscera was preserved, there is no evidence to show that the viscera was ever sent for forensic examination. According to the evidence of the informant, the balance dowry amount was only Rs.5,000/-, and there is specific allegation that it is for the said amount only, that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture, but at the same time, there is evidence of all the witnesses supporting the prosecution case, that she lived at her in-laws’ place for more than two years properly, and in the meantime, no demand was raised for that Rs.5,000/-, nor she was subjected to any ill-treatment during that period. It is quite doubtful that after the lapse of such a long time, the deceased would be subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of that amount of Rs.5,000/- only, by the devars and gotnis of the deceased, who are the appellants before us. We are of the considered view that in the facts of this case, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts, and the appellants were entitled at least for the benefits of doubt. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 16.01.1996 and Order of sentence dated 17.01.1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1994, convicting and sentencing the appellants Murat Ravidas, Balo Ravidas, Meena Devi and Fulwa Devi, for the offences under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, all these appellants are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are on bail and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 17. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Consequently, all these appellants are given the benefits of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are on bail and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. 17. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.