IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath, JJ.
Moti Das - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 981 of 2015
Decided On : 18-10-2022
498A, 302 and 201 IPC - Conviction set aside - Lack of evidence to prove the charges - No evidence to suggest the appellant's involvement in the death of his wife and children - No evidence of demand or torture made by the appellant in the presence of witnesses
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC based on the allegation that he murdered his wife and children and threw the bodies in a well due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence as there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not warrant the conviction of the appellant. The postmortem reports revealed no external injuries on the deceased except for one, and the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. The court ruled out the charge of murder and found no evidence to establish the appellant's role as an abettor in the suicide of his wife and children.
Issues: Lack of evidence to prove the charges of murder and abetment of suicide
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of substantial evidence to support the allegations against the appellant. The testimony of witnesses did not substantiate the dowry demands and torture, and the postmortem reports did not align with the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction dated 15.12.2014 and order of sentence dated 23.12.2014, passed by Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court No. 1, Koderma in S.T. No. 54 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence punishable under section 498A IPC, R.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under section 201 IPC and imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC with a further direction that all the sentences are to run concurrently.
3. The fardbeyan of Ramdeo Ravidas was recorded on 25.11.2012 near the well of Babulal Rana at village-Lariadih to the effect that the marriage of his sister namely Kunti Devi @ Jamuni Devi was solemnized with Moti Das (appellant) about fifteen years back. After four years of marriage, Moti Das had demanded Rs.50,000/-as dowry and if the dowry was not fulfilled, a threat was extended to commit the murder of his sister. It has been alleged that the accused used to come intoxicated in the evening and used to assault the sister of the informant. In the night of 24/25.11.2012, the accused had repeatedly called on his mobile to enquire as to whether his sister had reached or not since he had boarded her on a vehicle.
It has been alleged that today i.e. 25.11.2012, an information was received that Moti Das has murdered his sister and thrown her in the well. When he along with his father and other family members had reached village-Lariadih, they saw a crowd having gathered and the body of his sister and his nephews and niece were found floating in the well. It has been alleged that whenever the informant used to visit his sister at Lariadih, she used to complain that Modi Das regularly assaulted her after having liquor.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Koderma P.S. Case No. 341 of 2012 was instituted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 120B, 498A/34 IPC against Moti Das and Rupia Mosomat. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Moti Das and Rupia Mosomat under sections 302, 201, 498A/34 IPC. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 54/2012. Charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302, 201 and 34 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Be it noted that co-accused-Rupia Mosomat has been acquitted by the learned trial court.
6. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of its case.
P.W-1-Paryag Ravidas is the uncle of the informant. He has deposed that the marriage of Kunti was solemnized with Moti Das about twenty years back. At the time of the incident, she was at her matrimonial house. It was the day of Chhath Puja when information was received that Moti Das has committed the murder of Kunti. At this the villagers had gone to village-Lariadih, Pathardiha where a crowd was found having assembled. On query, it was disclosed that the police had already taken the dead bodies to the police station. He came to know that Moti Das had committed the murder of his niece who was pregnant as well as four children and had thrown them in the well. On going to the hospital, he had seen all the five dead bodies. Prior to the occurrence, his brother has disclosed that the accused used to regularly torture his daughter and also used to make a demand of Rs.40,000/--Rs.50,000/-. He has identified his signature in the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext-1.He has also proved his signature in the seizure list, which is with respect to seizure of a pair of shoes and sleepers and
Lack of substantial evidence to prove the charges of murder and abetment of suicide
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, the burden on the accused to explain facts within his special knowledge, and the import....
The court emphasized that to convict under dowry death, evidence must convincingly establish cruelty and demand for dowry, which was not proved in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborated evidence in cases involving dowry demands and assault, as well as the requirement to prove the deceased's death with....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any gaps can benefit the accused.
The necessity of proving the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.
Prosecution must establish allegations of dowry death beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and unjustified delays lead to acquittal.
The onus shifts to the accused to prove innocence once prima facie case for dowry death is established.
The prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death to establish a case under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.