Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Birendra Kumar, J.
Anrudh Das & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Sj) No. 2523 of 2019 With Criminal Appeal (Sj) No. 2678 of 2019
Decided On : 28-09-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B/34 and 201/34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Dowry death and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Plurality of prosecution witness to prove a criminal charge is not requirement of law unless solitary witness is not wholly reliable – Ordinarily, such offences are committed within four corners of a house and direct and independent evidence regarding cruelty or harassment on victim by her husband or relatives of her husband may not be available – However, prosecution cannot be absolved of its duty to prove charge beyond all reasonable doubts – There is complete lack of evidence that victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of relative of husband for or in connection with any demand of dowry – Informant is not an eyewitness on cruelty to deceased nor it is case of informant that deceased had ever complained about harassment at hands of appellants in connection with any demand of dowry nor any other witness has been produced by prosecution to substantiate that they had occasion to see torture to victim by husband or relatives of husband in connection with any dowry demand – Prosecution has failed to prove most important ingredient of charge under Section 304B – Only for death of a woman otherwise under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage would not attract mischief of Section 304B unless there is acceptable evidence that woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry by her husband or other in-laws – Sole prosecution witness has not even used words that victim was harassed or tortured much less nature of harassment and torture, before her death – Charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code against appellant does not stand proved – There is no evidence that anyone saw appellants involved in making evidence of commission of offence to disappear with intent to screen offender from legal punishment – Only on conjectures and surmises it cannot be assumed that appellants were involved in screening evidence of crime – Prosecution has failed to prove charge under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code as well – Prosecution failed to prove that victim was being tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demand by husband or relatives of her husband before her death – Unless prosecution proves ingredients of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act would not come into play – There is no direct evidence that appellant was involved in screening evidence of crime with intent to save real culprit of crime – Charge under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code also fails – Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and they deserve acquittal – Impugned judgment and order of sentence set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 6 to 14)
JUDGMENT
1. Both the appellants, above named, along with others were arrayed as accused in Parbatta P.S. Case No. 398 of 2015 registered under Sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the written report of Arvind Yadav of village Ariya, P.S. Parbatta, District- Khagaria. After investigation of the case police exonerated several accused vide Charge-sheet No. 175 dated 17.04.2016. However, sent to appellant Anrudh Das for trial and investigation against appellant Birbal Yadav and non-FIR accused Nandu Yadav was kept pending. Thereafter, another charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed vide Charge-sheet No. 440 of 2016 dated 30.11.2016 against appellant Birbal Das @ Birbal Yadav and investigation against non-FIR accused Nandu Yadav was kept pending.
Due to filing of separate charge sheet the trial against the appellants were separately committed to the Court of Sessions.
Appellant Birbal Das faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 2017/27 of 2018 for offences under Sections 304B, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Anrudh Das faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2016/715 of 2019 for offences under Sections 304B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
By judgment dated 29.05.2019 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2019 passed separately in two sessions trial by the same Presiding Officer of the Court of learned Fast Track Court No. I, Khagaria, the appellants were found guilty for the offences under Sections 304B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine of rupees ten thousand for offence under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of rupees two thousand for offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine of rupees ten thousand the appellants were directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment and in default of payment of fine of rupees two thousand one month simple imprisonment was ordered. Appellant Birbal Das was acquitted of charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have challenged herein their conviction and sentence passed in the aforesaid sessions trial.
2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the first written report of Mr. Arvind Yadav submitted to Parbatta Police Station, is that his daughter K was married five years back with appellant Birbal Das of village Parbatta, PS. Parbatta, District-Khagaria. The marriage was solemnized after giving gift (Dan Dahej). After marriage Birbal Das and his brother Anrudh Das (appellants above) always used to abuse and assault to K and asked her to bring rupees one lac from her father failing which she would be killed. The informant along with his relatives several times visited and consoled the appellants Birbal Das and Anrudh Das; rather paid rupees sixty thousand. About five months back, a male child born of the wedlock of Birbal and K. On 23.12.2005 appellant Anrudh Das called the informant from the mobile of K and informed that K has already died. Thereafter, he disconnected the call. Thereafter, the informant and others came to the house of Birbal Das. Only Anrudh Das was found at the house. When the informant inquired whereabouts of K, Anrudh Das abused and informed that he has already killed K and the informant is free to do whatever he can. Thereafter, the informant and others caught Anrudh Das to take him to the police station. In the meantime, other accused persons came there and started assault against the informant and got forceful release of Anrudh Das. The villagers informed that the dead body of 'K' is lying in the Jhaua field area. The informant apprehended that the dead body of K was hidden by the appellant and others just to screen the evidence of crime.
3. Mr. S.M. Ashraf, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both these appeals, submits that in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 2017 wherein only appellant Birbal Das faced trial, only
The prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304B IPC, including demand for dowry soon before death, to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
Prosecution must prove unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty/harassment for dowry 'soon before' death beyond reasonable doubt to invoke dowry death presumption; general allegatio....
Prosecution must prove essential elements of dowry death under Section 304B, including proximate link between demand and death, beyond reasonable doubt.
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
