Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 1274
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
GOPAL PRASAD, J.
Jitendra Pandey @ Bangur Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 700 of 2012
Decided On : 18-12-2015
For the Appellant :Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. S.A. Ahmad, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304-B of the IPC to uphold the conviction for dowry death based on evidence of demand, cruelty, and cause of death.
Headnote:
DOWRY DEATH - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 304(B) - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the IPC, finding that the victim was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of dowry demands and died due to strangulation. The court considered the evidence of demand and cruelty, the postmortem report, and the absence of sustainable defense, leading to the conclusion that the appellant committed the offense of dowry death.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Nitu Devi, was allegedly murdered by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law for non-fulfillment of dowry demands. The prosecution presented evidence of demand and cruelty, and the postmortem report indicated death by strangulation.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the IPC, considering the evidence of demand and cruelty, the postmortem report, and the absence of sustainable defense.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's evidence of demand and cruelty, the postmortem report, the defense's alibi and suicide claims, and the applicability of Section 304-B of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence of demand and cruelty, the postmortem report, and the absence of sustainable defense supported the conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC, establishing the offense of dowry death.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.
GOPAL PRASAD, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant has been convicted under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
3. Prosecution case, as alleged in the F.I.R. by the informant (P.W.1) Sailendra Tiwary, is that the marriage of his sister Nitu Devi @ Bimla Devi was solemnized on 25.05.2009 with Jitenrda Pandey @ Bangur Pandey, S/o Sheodas Pandey @ Budhan Pandey of village Chhatanwar. He has further stated that his sister was living in her sasural after marriage. It is further alleged that since the time of marriage when she came to sasural, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to demand motorcycle and golden chain and they disclosed them that they are poor people and when they will get money, they will satisfy their demand. But the sasural people used to subject her to cruelty and used to threaten her to kill and to throw her out from matrimonial home. His father has come to Chahtanwar for about a month back and made them to understand. Further case is that on 26.09.2009, he got information on telephone that his sister is seriously ill. Thereafter, the informant proceeded from his house for Chhatanwar and found his sister Nitu Devi @ Bimla Devi dead. It is alleged that his sister has been murdered by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. The fardbayan was recorded on 26.09.2009 at village Chhatanwar under the Krishna Brahm Police Station. On the basis of fardbayan, the FIR was lodged. The investigation proceeded. The inquest report was prepared and body was sent for postmortem. In presence of the witnesses, the investigating officer investigated the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is the house of Shivdas Pandey in village Chhatanwar. The dead body was found in the courtyard in the middle and it was found lying north to south. He has given boundary, in the east, the house of Shiv Shankar Shukla, in the west, the house of Ramdas Pandey, in the north, the house of Ganga Sagar, in the south, there is village road and thereafter the house of Satyanarayan Shukla. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination and the postmortem report was prepared and police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet. On submission of charge-sheet, the cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Session and after the commitment, the charges were framed for offence under section 304(B) of IPC and trial proceeded.
4. During the trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
5. PW-1 Sailendra Kumar Tiwary is the informant who supported the prosecution case that the marriage of the victim was solemnized with the appellant on 25.05.2009. There was demand of dowry. He has also deposed that he went twice to the sasural of the victim and remained there for whole night and has stated that he went to sasural of the victim after 4-5 days of marriage and, thereafter, at the time of Rakshabandhan and, thereafter, he got information about her death and when he reached there, he found the victim dead.
6. PW-2 Sri Ram Tiwary is the father of the victim and he has also supported the prosecution case regarding marriage being solemnized and the demand subjecting to cruelty. For non-fulfillment of the demand of motorcycle and golden chain, the victim was murdered. He has also stated that he went to sasural of his daughter twice after marriage.
7. PW-3 Gupteshwar Tiwary is the co-villager. He has also supported the prosecution case regarding the demand and subjecting cruelty.
8. PW-5 Gupteshwar Upadhyaya has stated in his evidence that victim died by strangulation. However his evidence is hit by hearsay.
9. PW-6 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the person of the victim Nitu Devi wife of Jitendra Pandey and he has found six injuries on her person which are as follows:-
(i) Abrasion below the right eye 1 ½ cm x 1 cm.
(ii) Bruise near left eye 1 ½ inch x ½ inch.
(
