Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath, JJ.
Tulsi Prasad Sah - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 315 of 2013
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 302/201 - 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment highlighted the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the use of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of the appellant's wife in unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial house. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence of assault and demand for dowry, while the appellant denied involvement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to explain the injuries on the deceased and did not discharge the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court convicted the appellant under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The key issues included the presence of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and the appellant's failure to explain the injuries on the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the appellant, who failed to discharge it. The use of circumstantial evidence and the failure to explain the injuries led to the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2012 and the order of sentence dated 29.08.2012 passed by Sri Manoj Srivastava, learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 234 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo imprisonment for further six months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. A written report was submitted by Shiv Shankar Prasad on 01.04.2009 in which it has been stated that the marriage of his sister Beena Devi was solemnized with Tulsi Prasad Sah (appellant) in the year 2004. About one year after the marriage, his sister was kept properly by her husband and in-laws but thereafter on various pretexts she was started to be tortured. Demand was made of Rs. 50,000/-cash, fridge, Godrej almirah etc. which could not be fulfilled due to the economic condition of the informant as a result of which his sister was subjected to assault. A Panchayat was also held but the accused persons refused to abide by the decision taken in the Panchayat. It has been alleged that on 01.04.2009 an information was received that his sister has died and when he went to her matrimonial house he found his sister lying on the ground and a rope was found tied to her neck.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Shikaripara P. S. Case No. 30 of 2009 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against four accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the four named accused persons and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 234 of 2009. Charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Vide the impugned judgement three of the accused namely Kamla Devi, Santosh Prasad Sah and Soni Devi have been acquitted by the learned trial court.
4. In course of trial the prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 (Rekha Devi) has deposed that the deceased Beena Devi was her sister. Her marriage was solemnized with Tulsi Prasad Sah in the year 2004. She does not know about the relationship between her sister and brother-in-law. On the date of occurrence, all the four accused had committed the murder. The villagers had disclosed about such fact. She has stated that after marriage she was kept well for some time but thereafter quarrel started between them. A Panchayat was held but she had not attended the Panchayat. She does not know the reason for the quarrel between the husband and wife.
In her cross-examination, she has deposed that the brother of Tulsi Prasad Sah namely Santosh had informed them at around 4-5 p.m. She was not questioned by the police. The relationship between Beena and her husband was cordial.
6. P.W.2 (Dinesh Prasad Sah) and P.W. 3 (Rambabu Sah) did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.
7. P.W.4 (Rajesh Kumar Sah) has stated that he does not know anything about the incident.
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the relationship of Tulsi with his wife was cordial.
8. P.W.5
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the use of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt were central legal principles in the judgment.
The burden of proving specific intention falls onto the individual, and in a case based on circumstantial evidence, an evasive or untrue response from the accused becomes an additional link in the ch....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence and the f....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion cannot replace substantive proof.
The prosecution must fully establish the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused in cases based on circumstanti....
Continuous demand of dowry and torture leading to the death of the deceased proved the ingredients of dowry death under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
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
