Back
2004(2) Crimes 476
Patna High Court (DB)
Ram Nandan Prasad & Chandra Mohan Prasad, JJ.
Satyendra Singh & Anr.—Appellants
versus
State of Bihar—Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 224 of 2000
Decided on 2-12-2003.
For the Appellants :Suraj Narain Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Deepak Kumar, Mukesh Kumar, Rama Shankar Prasad and Miss Aparna Bharti, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Lala Kailash Bihari, Advocate.
Important Point
Making the demand is not sufficient to bring the case u/s. 304-B IPC, there must be cruelty or harassment soon before commission of crime for non-fulfilment of dowry.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 394B & 201 — Dowry death — Deceased married to appellant one & half year ago died in matrimonial house — Evidence of father of deceased that accused was demanding motor-cycle which could not be fulfilled — Conviction by trial Court — Appeal — Father of deceased admitted that demand for motor-cycle was not made to him — No direct evidence of accused having put up any demand — Sister of deceased though had been receiving letter from deceased no letter mentioned any torture or harassment or ill-treatment to deceased — Prosecution could not be said to have established ingredients of dowry death so as to attract presumption u/s. 113B Evidence Act — Doctor examined in defence that deceased was suffering diarrhoea a day before death & was being treated by him — Conviction could not be sustained. (Paras 8, 9, 11 & 12)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
R.N. Prasad and C.M. Prasad, JJ.— The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated
26/27.4.2000 passed by the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 347 of 1999 whereby appellant, Satyendra Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison-ment for 14 years. He has further been convicted for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison-ment for three years. Appellant, Babu Ram Singh has been convicted for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Birja Singh gave his fard-beyan on 18.12.1994 at about 8.15 p.m. that his daughter Kamla Devi was married to Satyendra Singh, the appellant, about one and half years ago. Second marriage took place after five months. At the time of second marriage his son-in-law Satyendra Singh deman-ded a Hero Honda motor-cycle. He assured him to fulfil the demand. After four months of her second marriage he brought his daughter to his house. The people of the village Soni were not coming to his house. They were saying that unless demand of motor-cycle was fulfilled they would not come. His samdhi sent a message to send his daughter-in-law otherwise she would be deserted. On 11.12.1994 Vishwanath Singh of village Soni came to take Kamla Devi to her sasural. Vishwanath Singh disclosed that Satyendra Singh was saying that after fulfilling the demand of motor-cycle he would come to his house. On 12.12.1994 he sent his daughter to the house of his son-in-law. On 18.12.1994 a man of village Soni whom he did not recognise, came at about 5 p.m. and informed that his daughter has been killed by throttling by his son-in-law, his father, his mother and other family members and she has been burnt in the night itself. On getting information he went to village Soni but no one was at the house of his son-in-law. Bhikar Singh met him later on. He disclosed that his daughter fell ill in the night and died and the dead body was burnt in the night itself. He learnt from the people of the village that Satyendra Singh, Babu Ram Singh, Vishwanath Singh, Bhikar Singh and Somariya Devi have caused death of his daughter by throttling in the night.
3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal First Information Report was drawn, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted. On receipt of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence as indicated above.
4. The defence of the appellants was that marriage of appellant, Satyendra Singh, with Kamla Devi took place in the year 1991. His wife, Kamla Devi, died due to ailment. She was admitted in a private clinic of Dr. S.N. Basu on 17.12.1994 and she died on the next day.
5. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses out of which PWs 1 to 8 are hearsay witnesses and all belong to village Khaira. PW 9 is informant of the case and he is also hearsay witness with respect to the occurrence. PW 10 proved the material exhibit I, i.e. ash mixed bone, and blouse. Ext. II PW 11 is an advocate clerk, who proved the First Information Report, Ext.3 and fardbeyan, Ext. 4. PW 12, Kapildeo Prasad Singh, proved the case diary paragraph Nos. 1 to 22 and supplemen-tary case diary paragraph Nos. 1 to 57.
6. The defence in support of its case also examined five witnesses. DW 1 is a doctor, who treated the deceased on 17.12.1994. DW 2 has been examined to show that marriage of Satyendra Singh with Kamla Devi took place in the year 1991 and he went to inform about the death to the informant. DW 3 proved the invitation card. Ext. D to show that marriage took place on 11.6.1991. DW 4 proved the d
