Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 720 (JHR)

Gangadhar Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2019-03-14

H.C.MISHRA, S.K.DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 16.01.2001, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in S.T. No. 142 of 1997, whereby the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased lady, has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Kunti Gowalin, who is the mother of the deceased Bhawani Bala Gope, recorded on 31.12.1996 at her village Dalgram, P.S. Nimdih, District Seraikella, wherein she has stated that she had married her daughter to the accused Gangadhar Gope, about eight months ago, and thereafter she was living at her in-laws’ place. On 15.11.1996 her daughter and son-in-law had come to their house on the occasion of Kali Puja, and during their stay at her house, her son-in-law had demanded Rs.10,000/-, which she was not in a position to give. Thereafter, her son-in-law wanted to return back to his village. Though her daughter was not ready to go with him, but she was also sent along with her husband on 19.11.1996. She did not inform anyone in the house about the demand of money by her son-in-law. On the next day, i.e., on 20.11.1996 she was informed that her daughter had died at Yogesh Nursing Home, Chandil, whereupon her husband and her son went there and saw the dead body. After returning back, her husband informed her that no in-law of her daughter was at the hospital and the Doctor informed him that the deceased had died due to consuming poison. She was also informed that on 20.11.1996, the deceased had gone to the paddy field for harvesting the paddy crop, where she fell down and got some fits, thereafter, she was brought to the nursing home. The information about the death was also given at Nimdih Police Station, and the post-mortem of the dead body was also done. She was also informed that on 20.11.1996, the deceased had gone to the paddy field for harvesting the paddy crop, where she fell down and got some fits, thereafter, she was brought to the nursing home. The information about the death was also given at Nimdih Police Station, and the post-mortem of the dead body was also done. Alleging that the accused had subjected her daughter to cruelty and torture for the demand of Rs.10,000/-, and had administered poison to the deceased, due to which she died, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Nimdih P.S Case No. 56 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No. 731 of 1996, was instituted against the sole accused, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 5. Though eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case, but none of the material witnesses have stated that there was any demand of dowry by this accused, and prior to her death, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture by this accused for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. P.W.-3 Ashok Kumar Gope, who is the brother of the deceased, P.W.-4 Atul Gope, who is the uncle of the deceased, P.W.-5 Kunti Gowalin, who is the mother of the deceased and the informant in the case, and P.W.-6 Ajit Gope, who is the father of the deceased, have only stated that this accused had demanded Rs.10,000/-. They have not stated as to for what purpose the money was demanded by the accused, nor have they stated that it was the demand for dowry. They have also not stated that the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty and torture for non-fulfillment of the said demand. No unruly behavior is alleged on the part of the accused, when the demand for money was refused. They have stated about the marriage of the deceased with this accused about eight months prior to her death. They have also not stated that the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty and torture for non-fulfillment of the said demand. No unruly behavior is alleged on the part of the accused, when the demand for money was refused. They have stated about the marriage of the deceased with this accused about eight months prior to her death. P.W.-3 Ashok Kumar Gope, P.W.-4 Atul Gope and P.W.-6 Ajit Gope, had also seen the dead body in the nursing home, where they were informed that the deceased had died due to poisoning. P.W.-5 Kunti Gowalin and P.W.-6 Ajit Gope have also stated that their daughter was not ready to go with her husband. 6. The other witnesses, namely P.W.-1 Panchanan Gope, who is the cousin of the deceased and P.W.-2 Anil Chandra Gope, who is the uncle of the deceased, have neither stated about any cruelty and torture, nor have they stated anything about the demand of dowry/money. They have only stated about the marriage between the parties and they were informed that the deceased had died due to poisoning. 7. P.W.-9 Bibi Gowalin, who is the aunt of the deceased, has stated that the deceased had met her before her death, but she did not inform her anything. Similarly, P.W.-11 Rebati Gope, who is also an aunt of the deceased, and P.W.-10 Fulmani, have stated nothing either about the demand of dowry/money, or subjecting the deceased to cruelty and torture for non-fulfillment of the demand. 8. P.W.-8 is Dr. Y. Nath, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 22.11.1996. No injury, either external or internal was found on the dead body of the deceased. The viscera was preserved by him, but he has stated that he had no knowledge whether the viscera was sent for forensic examination or not. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2. 9. The I.O. of the case has not been examined by the prosecution, and accordingly, the formal F.I.R. has been proved as Exhibit-1, by a formal witness, P.W.-7 Kishore Pradhan. 10. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is apparent that the main ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, have neither been alleged, nor proved by any witnesses, including the mother, father and brother of the deceased. 10. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is apparent that the main ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, have neither been alleged, nor proved by any witnesses, including the mother, father and brother of the deceased. Though it appears from the evidence on record that the deceased was married to this accused about only eight months prior to her death, which might have been an unnatural death, but there is neither any evidence of demand of dowry, nor there is any evidence that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture for non-fulfillment of any such demand, before her death. The cause of death of the deceased has also not been proved, as no injury, either external or internal, was found on the dead body, by P.W.-8 is Dr. Y. Nath, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, and there is no forensic proof of even poisoning. This apart, according to the F.I.R., it is apparent that the informant had learnt about the death of her daughter on 20.11.1996 itself, but the fardbeyan was given by her on 31.12.1996, after a gap of more than one month, but there is no explanation for this inordinate delay. 11. In the facts of this case, we find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge against the accused and the appellant has been wrongly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 16th January, 2001, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in S.T No. 142 of 1997, convicting and sentencing the appellant, Gangadhar Gope, for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant Gangadhar Gope is found not guilty and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 13. 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.