Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NAVIN SINHA AND SHIVAJI PANDEY, JJ.
Jai Prakash Sah & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.13 of 1990
Decided on: 05.04.2013
In a case involving the death of a woman due to burn injuries, the court upheld the conviction of the accused based on the dying declaration of the victim, corroborating evidence, and the failure of the defense to establish an alibi.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Ranju Devi, died due to severe burn injuries sustained in her matrimonial home. Before her death, she gave a dying declaration implicating her husband, Jai Prakash Sah, and his family members in the incident. The prosecution alleged that the accused had demanded a motorcycle as dowry and had assaulted the victim for not fulfilling the demand. The defense claimed that the victim had accidentally suffered burn injuries while cooking and that the accused was not present at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration of the victim was genuine and corroborated by other evidence. The court also rejected the alibi of the accused, noting that he had failed to provide any credible evidence to support his claim that he was not present at the time of the incident. The court concluded that the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the dying declaration of the victim was genuine and reliable. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. Whether the defense had established an alibi for the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the dying declaration of the victim was genuine and reliable, as it was recorded by a competent magistrate in the presence of witnesses and the victim was in a conscious state of mind at the time of making the statement. 2. The court found that the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the dying declaration of the victim, the corroborating evidence of other witnesses, and the failure of the defense to establish an alibi. 3. The court rejected the alibi of the accused, noting that he had failed to provide any credible evidence to support his claim that he was not present at the time of the incident.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused.
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY)
1. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8.12.1989 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No.82 of 1989 whereby both the appellants, namely, Jai Prakash Sah and Indrabati Devi have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act and appellant, Jai Prakash Sah, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Indrabati Devi has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. From the record it appears that appellant no. 2, namely, Indrabati Devi had died during pendency of this appeal on 10.7.1993 and as such the appeal against her abates and as such the present appeal is confined to Jai Prakash Sah (Appellant no.1).
3. One Jamuna Sah (P.W.7) lodged a Fardbeyan alleging therein that his daughter Ranju Devi (deceased) was married with accused/appellant Jai Prakash Sah three and half years before the date of alleged occurrence. It has been alleged that on 8.6.1988 at about 9 P.M. accused Om Prakash Sah alias Chutul Sah Younger brother of Jai Prakash Sah came to the house of the informant and told him, his elder brother was calling him. When he asked the reason, he could not give any satisfactory reply. The informant and his nephew Sanjiv Kumar went to the house of Jai Prakash Sah where they heard screaming and crying sound of Ranju Devi (deceased). They entered into the house, went up-stairs, there all the three, namely, Jai Prakash Sah, Chutul Sah and Indrabati Devi alleged them to have burnt his daughter, pushed both persons, namely, the informant and his nephew Sanjiv Kumar in a room and locked them from outside and they remained inside the room for half an hour, later rescued by Havildar of Lal Darwaja Out-Post then they could know that the daughter of the informant was shifted to Sadar Hospital, Munger. After release from confinement they went to the Sadar Hospital where they found his daughter was in a burnt condition and lying unconscious, claimed the accused persons made an effort to kill the daughter of the informant by setting her on fire. It has further been alleged that earlier the accused persons used to assault his daughter who used to inform him through letter about the assault perpetrated on her as they were demanding motorcycle and used to hurl threatening for killing the victim lady. The informant was not in a position to give the motorcycle on account of his poverty. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan Kotwali P.S. Case No.211 of 1988 was registered for offences under Sections 342 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. As the victim lady, Ranju Devi died on 14.6.1988 and after her death charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was added.
5. The police after investigation found the material evidence against accused persons, submitted charge sheet. After commitment, the trial court framed charge for offences under Sections 302/34 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As it appears that allegation has been made of burning of Ranju Devi by the accused persons on account of not giving the motor cycle as demanded by the accused persons in dowry. The trial of Chutul Sah was separated on 16.1.1989 under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
6. The prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses. P.W.1 is Dr. D. K. Sinha who conducted the post-mortem of the victim lady. P.W.2 Jagdish Pra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
