Sunil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 even he stopped providing her clothes and food. Being fed up with the behaviour of appellant, Suman Kumari wrote several letters to her mother mentioning the fact of her torturing. The wife of P.W.3 informed him about the aforesaid fact and after that P.W.3. went to the house of the appellant with an intent to take back Suman Kumari and the date of Bidai was fixed on 28.07.1999. The aforesaid date was finalized on 17.09.1999 and on the same day his daughter Suman Kumari narrated all the facts to him. He further stated that on

28.07.1999, he went to the house of the appellant with his relatives, Raghubansh Singh (P.W.4) and Kamlesh Kumar Singh (P.W.2.) at about 04:00 P.M. and when he reached there, he learnt that his daughter was poisoned to death by the appellant and her dead body was disposed of. The aforesaid fact was disclosed by the father of the appellant and his co-villagers. The appellant fled away from his house when he reached there. He further stated that he returned to his home and discussed the matter with his family members and after that he preferred to file complaint case instead of informing the police about the alleged occurrence and then he filed complaint petition in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra.

4. After due enquiry, prima facie case under Sections 304 B, 201, 498 A of the Indian Penal Code as well as ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act was found and the case was committed to the court of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 Sessions, in usual way. The appellant was put on trial and accordingly, he was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 304 B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. As many as five prosecution witnesses were examined and prosecution also got exhibited letters as Exhibit-1 series, signatures of P.W.3 as Exhibit-2 series and complaint petition as Exhibit-3. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he reiterated his innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case.

6. The appellant also got examined two witnesses in support of his defence and also got proved letters as Exhibit-A series, copy of judgment of Reference No. 51 of 1993 dated 01.05.1997 as Exhibit-B, School Leaving Certificate of his son as Exhibit-C, medical prescriptions as Exhibit-D series.

7. The learned trial court having considered the materials available on the record convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order is erroneous and as a matter of fact the prosecution could not succeed to prove its Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts. Continuing his submission, he submitted that Exhibit-1 series, the letters said to be written by the deceased to her mother show that there was not even whispering in respect of demand of dowry and the contents of aforesaid letters disclosed that deceased was fed up with poverty. He further submitted that P.W.3 has admitted at para 9 of his cross examination that at the time of marriage, the appellant was employed in Coal India but after five to six months of his marriage, he was retrenched and fought for his job up to the Apex Court. He further submitted that Exhibit-A series reveal that relation between deceased and appellant was very cordial and the P.W.3 has admitted at para 15 of his cross examination that Exhibit-A series (letters) were in writing of his daughter, Suman Kumari. He also drew my attention towards para 18 of cross examination of P.W.3 and submitted that P.W.3 admitted in the aforesaid paragraph that deceased had not written even a single letter to him mentioning the fact of demand of dowry and, therefore, there was nothing before the trial court to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that admittedly, the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and he was not Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 convicted by the learned trial court either under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the learned trial court committed error in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also committed error in sentencing the appellant for rigorous imprisonment of seven years under the above stated section.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has already suffered a lot by remaining in jai custody for more than two years and, therefore, even if this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution succeeded to prove charge framed under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, then also, the appellant should be sentenced for the period already undergone by him in course of trial as well as during the pendency of this appeal.

11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order.

12. As I have already stated that, altogether, five prosecution witnesses were examined in this case and out of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, P.W.1, Brij Kishore Singh has been declared hostile and P.W.5, Ramji Ram is a formal witness who had typed the complaint petition and proved his signature on the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 complaint petition.

13. P.W.2, Kamlesh Kumar Singh supported prosecution case in his examination in chief. On being cross examined, this witness claimed that the demand had been made in his presence but he could not disclose the date on which the aforesaid demand was made.

14. P.W.4, Raghubansh Singh also supported the prosecution case in his examination in chief and stated that at the time of marriage, demand of dowry was made and when the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment. He also stated that deceased had written several letters to her mother disclosing the factum of torture and harassment. He further stated that on 28.07.1999, he along with P.W.3 and one other had gone to in-laws’ house of the deceased and seeing them the appellant fled away from there. At para 7 of his cross examination he stated that he came to know about the demand of dowry from the letters of the deceased and his sister had disclosed about the aforesaid letters.

15. P.W.3. is the informant of this case. He, too, supported the prosecution case in his examination in chief and stated that his daughter was subjected to cruelty on account of non fulfilment of dowry demand which was made by the appellant at the time of his marriage. He also stated this fact that his daughter had written letters Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 to her mother. This witness proved the aforesaid letters as Exhibit-1 series. He further stated that when he along with others came at in laws house of his daughter on 17.07.1999, his daughter narrated her about the torture meted out to her by the appellant. This witness admitted at para 9 of his cross examination that at the time of marriage appellant was working in coal India at Ranchi but after five to six months of marriage, he was retrenched and he fought his case up to the Supreme Court. He also admitted at para 14 of his cross examination that the factum of torture for dowry demand had not been mentioned in the letters of his daughter. This witness also proved Exhibit-A series which are letters written by the deceased to her husband. He further admitted at para 18 of his cross examination that there was no such letter to show this fact that appellant had demanded dowry. He further admitted at para 21 of his cross examination that he did not get any information to this effect that his daughter was died of cholera and diarrhoea.

16. Admittedly, the prosecution could not succeed to prove charge framed under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that appellant has been convicted only under Section 498 A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013

17. Now, let us proceed to see as to whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is justified or not. Before discussing the aforesaid issue, I would like to refer Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code which runs as follows :- Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life- and if the offence is punishable with [ imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

18. From bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is explicit clear that to constitute an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. Therefore, offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is said to have been committed when accused knowing or having reason to believe causes to disappear any evidence of commission of that offence or to give false information in respect of that offence.

19. In the aforesaid backdrop, now let us see as to whether there is material on the record to show this fact that the appellant knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed caused any evidence of commission of that offence to disappear with intention of screening himself from legal punishment Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 or with that intention he gave any false information respecting the above stated offence.

20. P.W.4, has admitted in his examination in chief that when he along with informant and other went to the house of the appellant, the appellant fled away from there and, therefore, the aforesaid statement of P.W.4 demonstrates that on 28.07.1999 there was no talk between appellant and P.W.3 and others. So, It is clear from the aforesaid statement that no information was given by the appellant on the aforesaid date. Furthermore, there is not even whispering in the depositions of prosecution witnesses that any false information regarding the commission of any offence was given by the appellant to P.W.3, the informant of this case, or any other persons.

21. Perusal of impugned judgment of conviction shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to conclusion that information regarding the death of deceased was not given by the appellant to the parents of deceased and without giving any information appellant disposed of the dead body of the deceased with an intention to screen himself from legal punishment. Admittedly, the appellant has not been convicted either under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, even if the appellant disposed of the dead body of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 deceased without giving any information regarding the death of deceased to parents of her family, then also, no case under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge framed under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

22. So far as Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, Exhibit-A series, the letters written by the deceased to her mother clearly demonstrate that deceased was suffering from mental torture meted out to her by the appellant. The deceased wrote in her letter (Exhibit-1/1) that appellant used to torture her mentally,

23. Here, I would like to refer Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code which runs as follows:- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation- For the purpose of this section,” cruelty” means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]

24. From bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is explicit clear that if a woman is subjected to cruelty by the husband or the relative of the husband, an offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is constituted. The explanation of the aforesaid section shows that any wilful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, shall come under the definition of cruelty.

25. In the instant case, Exhibit-1/1 shows that deceased was fed up with the conduct of the appellant and being fed up with the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 conduct of the appellant, she was thinking for committing suicide and that was the reason she wrote to her mother that it was her last letter.

26. D.W.I, Anil Kumar Singh is full brother of the appellant. This witness deposed that the marriage of appellant had taken place on 05.05.1992 and at the time of marriage, the appellant was in job but after marriage he was retrenched and, thereafter, he as well as some others filed case before the Tribunal and the Tribunal gave its verdict in favour of the appellant and others but management filed appeal before the Supreme Court. This witness further deposed that when the appellant was retrenched from his service, his economic condition became worst and deceased started residing at Delhi along with her father’s sister (Fua). This witness further deposed that deceased wrote several letters to appellant which are Exhibit-A series. This witness further deposed that in the year 1999 deceased came at her in laws house and started residing there but unfortunately, on

01.07.1999, she ate stale food which caused diarrhoea to her and after that she was got treated by the appellant but unfortunately, she died. This witness further deposed that after the death of his wife, the mental condition of the appellant started deteriorating and he was got admitted in Mental Asylum, Kanke, Ranchi but at para 13 of his cross examination, this witness admitted that he never got treated the appellant nor the appellant was taken away to mental hospital by this Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 witness and at para 15 of his cross examination, he admitted that he came at his home after death of deceased. He further admitted that the local doctor had given treatment to the deceased but he did not see any prescription. Therefore, the statement of this witness reveals that he is not a competent witness to say this fact as to how the deceased died and furthermore, his statement is not reliable on the mental condition of the appellant. D.W.2, Chandrashekhar Singh is co- villager of the appellant. This witness deposed that after retrenchment from service as well as after death of wife of the appellant, the mental condition of the appellant started deteriorating and he was taken to Mental Asylum, Kanke, Ranchi where he was got admitted on

20.11.1999. This witness stated that one doctor, namely, B. K. Singh gave treatment to the appellant and this witness proved medical prescriptions as Exhibit-D and D-1 but when this witness was cross examined by prosecution, this witness admitted at para 6 of his cross examination that full name of doctor has not been written in medical prescription and he does not know the full name of the aforesaid doctor. This witness also admitted that there is no stamp either of the doctor or of the hospital on Exhibit-D series. Therefore, the statement of this witness also does not inspire confidence.

27. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, it is explicit clear that the defence could not succeed to prove this fact that before Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 the death of deceased, the appellant was suffering from mental problem.

28. Exhibit-1/1, the letter of the deceased shows that perhaps the aforesaid letter was last letter of the deceased and the aforesaid letter clearly demonstrates this fact that deceased was suffering from mental torture meted out to her by the appellant and the aforesaid mental torture was enough to drive her to commit suicide.

29. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully proved the charge framed under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court under the aforesaid section.

30. The appellant has been sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant remained in jail custody for near about two years in course of trial as well as during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, in my view, in the interests of justice, it would be sufficient to sentence the appellant for the period already undergone by him in course of trial as well as during the pendency of this appeal.

31. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.313 of 2001 dt.23-01-2013 criminal appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in judgment of conviction and sentence order. SHAHZAD/A.F.R. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)