Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
BIJAY KUMAR SAH - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF BIHAR - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2009
Decided On : 01-10-2018
Tarun Kumar Sinha, Adv., Parmeshwar Mehta, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 304B of the I.P.C. and the legal presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
304B - Dowry Death - I.P.C. - [Section 304B of the I.P.C.] - The court discussed the ingredients of Section 304B of the I.P.C. and the legal presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. It highlighted the concept of 'soon before her death' and emphasized the need for a proximate and live link between the cruelty related to dowry demand and the death. The judgment also referenced the case of Maya Devi and another v. State of Haryana, (2016) CriLJ 629 to support its interpretation of the term 'soon before her death'. The court analyzed the evidence to establish the fulfillment of the requirements of Section 304B, including the timing of the death, the cause of death, and the evidence of demand and cruelty related to dowry. It also emphasized the significance of non-cross-examination of witnesses on specific points and the legal presumption allowed under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Gunjan Devi, was married to Bijay Kumar Sah and subsequently died within a year of marriage. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to torture and cruelty related to a demand for dowry, leading to her death. The defense claimed that the deceased had committed suicide due to depression arising from her previous marriage and denied the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died due to homicidal death caused by strangulation within one year of marriage and during the intervening period, there was a demand for dowry, which the prosecution party could not fulfill. The court also noted the failure of the defense to properly cross-examine witnesses and rebut the legal presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Issues: The key issues included establishing the fulfillment of the requirements of Section 304B of the I.P.C., determining the cause of the deceased's death, and evaluating the evidence of demand and cruelty related to dowry. The court also addressed the significance of non-cross-examination of witnesses and the legal presumption allowed under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fulfillment of the requirements of Section 304B of the I.P.C., the cause of the deceased's death, and the evidence of demand and cruelty related to dowry. It also emphasized the significance of non-cross-examination of witnesses and the legal presumption allowed under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the sentence imposed on the appellants. The court canceled the bail bonds of the appellants and directed them to surrender to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
Appellants Bijay Kumar Sah, Phool Devi and Karu Sah have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304B of the I.P.C. and each one has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years with a further direction that the period so undergone during course of trial, will be subject to set off in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. vide judgment of conviction dated 18.11.2008 and order of sentence dated 20.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-IV, Munger in Sessions Trial No.12 of 2007.
2. Kiran Devi (PW-6) gave her fard-bayan on 27.05.2005 before the police official at village-Mungoroura at the house of Suresh Prasad Sah where her daughter Gunjan Devi (deceased) was residing along with her husband Bijay Kumar Sah, father-in-law, mother-in-law along with other family members on tenancy, had disclosed inter alia that Gunjan Devi was married last year with Bijay Kumar Sah, son of Karu Sah. After marriage, she had gone to sasural wherefrom she was taken to the house of Suresh Prasad Sah where all the family members were residing under tenancy. Just after 4-5 days of marriage, Phool Devi (mother-in-law) came to her and asked for Rs. 10,000/-, as dowry (due) and further, threatened that in case of non-payment, she will not allow her daughter to live peacefully. On account of financial crunch, she could not provide the aforesaid amount and in the aforesaid background, the mother-in-law, father-in-law, Dewar Ajay Kumar began to manhandle her daughter and by such activity, inflicted physical cruelty over her. Just about ten days, lastly the mother-in-law Phool Devi kicked her out along with Bijay Kumar Sah, her son-in-law. Thereafter, her son-in-law Bijay Kumar Sah, daughter Gunjan Devi were employed by Munna Sah, Gola Bazar where they began to discharge menial work in order to earn their livelihood. After an interval of 4-5 days, Phool Devi again approached them and then, forcibly brought them to her place where her son-in-law used to hand over the amount, which he earned in lieu of daily wages. Unfortunately, he could not get job for few days, whereupon again her son-in-law as well as daughter were ousted by Phool Devi. Thereafter, they both came to her place where they were allowed to stay. Her son-in-law engaged in daily wages. They remained at her place for quite a long time about one and half months ago. Father-in-law Karu Sah, mother-in-law Phool Devi came to her place and anyhow, succeeded in taking away her son-in-law as well as her daughter to their place. Yesterday, i.e. on 26.05.2005, one rickshaw puller informed that their daughter has been murdered. While her dead body was being removed, same has been resisted by the local inhabitants. On account thereof, they rushed and came to the place of residence of her daughter where they found the dead body. None was present. In the aforesaid background, the informant had suspected murder of her daughter in the background of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry to a tune of Rs. 10,000/- by her sasuralwala.
3. After registration of East Colony P. S. Case No.18 of 2005, investigation was taken up and after concluding the same, charge-sheet was submitted facilitating the trial, meeting with the ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.
4. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial of the occurrence. It has also been pleaded that deceased was married since before with one Bablu and subsequently thereof, she has been married with accused Bijay Kumar Sah, whereupon she was not at all pleased with the affair and in the aforesaid background, committed suicide. In order to substantiate the same, oral as well as documentary evidence has also been adduced.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether eight PWs, who are PW-1, Manoj Sah, PW-2, Suresh Prasad Sah, PW-3, Chhotu Kumar Laheri,
