Back
2002 Supreme(Pat) 562
PATNA HIGH COURT
Narayan Roy and B.K.Jha JJ.
Arun Kumar Sharma
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1996 ;
Decided On : MAY 01, 2002
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of corroborative evidence, such as the testimony of the sole eye-witness and medical evidence, in cases involving dowry demand and assault leading to death.
Headnote:
Dowry Demand - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 302, 304(B), 498(A)/34 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly Secs. 302, 304(B), and 498(A)/34, in the context of dowry demand and the brutal assault leading to the death of the victim. The court emphasized the evidence of the sole eye-witness, medical evidence, and the absence of plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the First Information Report.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the brutal assault and death of his wife due to dowry demand. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, medical evidence, and delay in lodging the First Information Report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented, including the testimony of the sole eye-witness and medical evidence. The delay in lodging the First Information Report was attributed to the mental agony of the victim's family and did not cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the dowry demand, brutal assault, and death of the victim, as well as the delay in lodging the First Information Report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the testimony of the sole eye-witness, medical evidence, and the absence of plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the First Information Report in establishing the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant was confirmed.
B.K.Jha, J.
1. This appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Munger dated 11.12.1995 passed in Sessions Case No. 554 of 1994 whereby the sole appellant has been convicted u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution as contained in the fardbeyan (Ext. No. 3) of the informant, Leeladhar Pradhan is that his daughter Smt. Shushma Devi was married with the appellant Arun Kumar Sharma, son of Sitaram Sharma of Pachna Road, Lakhisarai Bazar, District Munger about four years back to the occurrence. After marriage this appellant started putting pressure upon her to bring one motorcycle and one colour T.V. from her father and used to threaten oust her from the house in case of non-fulfilment of dowry demand. Whenever the daughter of the informant used to visit the house of the informant she complained about the dowry demand and her torture at the hands of her husband-appellant and in-laws, Sitaram Sharma and Gayatri Devi. About 8-9 months before the occurrence deceased Shushma Devi was brutally assaulted by them for non-fulfilment of their dowry demand for which a panchaiti was convened in which the informant expressed his inability to fulfil their dowry demand.
The further case of the prosecution is that on 17.6.1994 at about 6 a.m., Anil Kumar Pradhan P.W. 1, son of the informant Leeladhar Pradhan, visited the place of his sister along with some articles. He noticed there that the appellant-husband, father-in-law, Sitaram Sharma and mother-in-law, Gayatri Devi were assaulting his sister, Shushma Devi brutally and this appellant was pressing her neck and after few moments his sister died. Thereafter, Anil Kumar Pradhan, P.W. 1, rushed to his house by raising halla and narrated the whole incident of murder of his sister. The informant along with his wife went to his daughters place and saw the dead body of his daughter lying in the baramdah inside the house and the villagers were present there.
3. On the same day, i.e. 17.6.1994 at 9 p.m., a telephonic information in this regard was received at Lakhisarai P.S. On the basis of the information received Station Diary Entry No. 516 (Ext. No. 5) was made. Thereafter the Officer Incharge of Lakhisarai P.S., Devanand Prasad, P.W. 7 along with Sub-Inspector of Lakhisarai P.S., Pradip Narayan Singh P.W. 5, the I.O. of this case and others went to the place of occurrence. The fardbeyan (Exb No. 3) of the informant Leeladhar, Pradhan, P.W. 4 was recorded on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. (Ext. No. 7) was drawn up and a case under Secs. 304(B), 498(A)/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 was instituted against the three accused persons, namely Arun Kumar Sharma, the husband-appellant of the deceased, father-in-law Sitaram Sharma and mother-in-law Gayatri Devi. The investigation of the case was entrusted to P.N. Singh, SI of Lakhisarai P.S., P.W. 5. Thereafter police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased Shushma Devi and accordingly inquest report (Ext. No. 8) was prepared. Thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and on 18.6.1994 an autopsy was held by P.W. 2, Dr. Dharm Nath Choudhary. The police received the post-mortem report (Ext. No. 1).
4. On completion of investigation, the I.O., P.W. 5, Pradeep Narayan Singh charge-sheeted all the three accused for trial under Secs. 304-B and 498-A/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Accordingly cognizance was taken and the case of all the three accused was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Ultimately, the charges under Secs. 302 and 302/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 were framed against the accused-appellant Arun Kumar Sharma and all the accused three persons respectively and all were tried for the charges framed against them.
5. The trial Judge convicted the appellant u/s. 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and awarded life sentence. He acquitted rest two accused, Sitaram Sharma and Gayatri Devi of the charge f
