IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of recovery of dead body of the wife who mysteriously disappeared and in absence of proof of dowry demand and harassment, the husband cannot be convicted u/s 304B and 498A IPC.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Body of deceased found near Azamnagar which is several stations before Barauni – Presence of the appellant and his wife Archana upto Barauni established – Archana missing – Nobody from Archana’s family identifying the dead body as that of Archana – Autopsy report not indicating cause of death – Further, time lag between death and autopsy more than six days, i.e. on 13.8.2007 whereas appellant and Archana proved to be travelling on 14.8.2007 – Dead body being that of Archana doubtful. (Para 44, 45, 46)
       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 293 – Report of FSL – FSL not conducting the DBNA test itself – Getting it done at a private laboratory – Witness testifying the DNA test result not present at the time of test – Technician present at the time of test not examined – Collection of blood samples from Archana’s parents not proper – Report concluding that DNA profile B1’of the dead body is generic product of D.N.A. profile of her parents – No scientific data given for the conclusion – Does not prove that the dead body was that of Archana. (Para 50, 51, 52)
       (2011) 10 SCC 192; (1997) 6 SCC 514; (2008) 4 SCC 493; (2004) 8 SCC 660; (2012) 4 SCC 516; (2011) II AD (Delhi) 612; (2015) 1 AKR 360 – Distinguished
       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B r/w section 113B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Death of Archana not proved beyond doubt – Dowry demand and harassment or ill-treatment also not established – Prosecution failing to prove charges u/s 304B/498A/201 IPC – Appellant could not be convicted u/s 304B/498A/201 IPC. (Para 58, 59)
       (2013) 5 SCC 722; (1973) 2 SCC 808; [1997] 2 L.R.C.593; (2014)14 SCC 664; (2015) 3 SCC 724 – Relied upon
       (d) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – Appellant and his wife Archana travelling in a Railway sleeper coach – Archana mysteriously disappearing at some station – Last seen theory will not help the prosecution against the appellant. (Para 69)
       (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Relied upon
       (e) Criminal trial – Judicial propriety – Judicial adjudication has to be guided by recognized legal dicta – Cannot be swayed by emotional or sentimental surges – Justice has to be administered essentially in accordance with law and uninfluenced by individual predilections, notions, and prejudices – Held, charges against the appellant not proved. (Para 71)
       (f) Criminal trial – Slip shod investigation – Manifest defects in investigation demonstrating inexcusable failure – Deprecated. (Para 74)
       (2013) 6 SCC 348 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       Rani Archana Sinha, a practicing advocate, got married on 29.04.2007 with the appellant. The couple went on their honeymoon trip to Darjeeling. They started their return journey on 14.08.2007 approximately at 2100 hrs. At 0510 hrs on 15.08.2007 at Bakhtiarpur Station, the appellant found his wife was missing from her birth. He reported the matter first with the GRP, Patna and eventually lodged the First Information Report with Mokamah G.R.P.S.
       A dead body of a woman was found near Katihar by the railway track on 18.08.2007.
       The mother of Archana filed a complaint alleging harassment and murder of her daughter by the appellant and his family members.
       The appellant convicted under Sections 304B, 201, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for varying terms for the offences involved.
       The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
       Finding of the Court:
       Conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

Judgment

Amitava Roy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A fond honeymoon trip of a newly wed young couple met with a tragic end, with the mysterious disappearance of the wife from the company of her husband, in the train in which they were traveling on their way back home. The appellant, the husband, in the attendant facts and circumstances, stands arraigned and convicted under Sections 304B, 201, 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as 'IPC') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for varying terms for the offences involved. The High Court of judicature at Patna, having affirmed the conviction & sentence recorded by the learned trial court, the appellant seeks redress in the instant proceedings, challenge being laid to the judgment and order dated 16.05.2014 rendered in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1169 of 2011.

3. A short preface to the dreadful episode is indispensable. Rani Archana Sinha (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “Archana”) got married on 29.04.2007 with the appellant according to Hindu rites and had duly joined the matrimonial home. Archana was a practicing advocate and had appeared in a competitive examination in which, as per the results declared on 10.08.2007, she was not selected. The couple planned their honeymoon trip to Darjeeling and proceeded thereto, by Capital Express on the same date. They alighted at New Jalpaiguri Station, and after visiting the places of their interest, as scheduled, they on 14.08.2007 boarded the same service for the return journey at 1500 hrs. As the facts have unfolded from the First Information Report lodged by the appellant with the Mokamah G.R.P.S. on 15.08.2007, the couple had dinner at Katihar Junction at 2000 hrs whereafter they retired for the night in their respective berths No. 33 (appellant) and No. 35 (Archana) in coach S–1 of sleeper class approximately at 2100 hrs. As per the version of the appellant, he woke up at 0510 hrs on 15.08.2007 at Bakhtiarpur Station, to find that his wife was missing from her birth whereafter, he started searching for her on the running train. According to him, when the train reached Patna Junction, he looked for her in the other trains also thereat. His plea is that on being enquired, the passengers in his coach did affirm that the lady was available in the train upto 0400-0430 hours. It is the appellant’s assertion that situated thus, he reported the matter first with the GRP, Patna and eventually lodged the First Information Report with Mokamah G.R.P.S.

4. This account of the introductory facts is available in the aforementioned First Information Report, in which noticeably, the appellant did disclose his presumption that his wife might have been kidnapped. This information was registered, as FIR No. 26/2007 dated 15.08.2007 under Section 365 IPC between 0400 PM to 0500 PM.

5. While the matter rested at that, on 18.08.2007 at 1430 hours, an information was laid by one Jagdish Chander Sharma resident of Village Daulatabad, P.S. Azam Nagar, District Katihar that on the same day at 1200 hours, he was informed by some children that a dead body was lying by the side of the railway track whereupon, he visited the spot and found the dead body of a female in a putrefied condition in a pit in a bush. According to him the body was lying prostate due to which the face was not visible. The informant opined that the death might have occurred due to fall from the train about four to five days back. He also described the wearing apparel of the dead body, to be “check green coloured salwar suite”. He mentioned about detached hairs from the head which were of black colour.

6. An inquest of the dead body followed on 19.08.2007 at 10.10 PM and a report based thereon was prepared. The findings as recorded inter alia did disclose that nothing was clear with regard to the marks of assault of injury, as the dead body was in the process of rotting. While noting that both feet were “in semi absent position due to rottin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 1118

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV. GOPALA GOWDA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.RAJIV SINGH – APPELLANTVERSUSSTATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER – RESPONDENTSCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1708 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 8111 OF 2014]Decided on : 16-12-2015

IMPORTANT POINTIn absence of recovery of dead body of the wife who mysteriously disappeared and in absence of proof of dowry demand and harassment, the husband cannot be convicted u/s 304B and 498A IPC.

Cases Referred (11)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
RAJIV SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1708 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 8111 OF 2014]
Decided on : 16-12-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of recovery of dead body of the wife who mysteriously disappeared and in absence of proof of dowry demand and harassment, the husband cannot be convicted u/s 304B and 498A IPC.