Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.356 of 2013 ====================================================== Rajendra Sah, Son of late Ram Kishun Sah, resident of village-Bhagwanpur Chakshekhu, ward no. 3, P.S.-Dalsingsarai, District-Samastipur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Arun Sah, son of Laxmi Sah. 3. Geeta Devi, wife of Laxami Sah. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 are residents of village-Cheria Bariyarpur, P.S.-Cheria Bariyarpur, District-Begusarai. .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 14-05-2013 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The present appeal has been filed under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.2.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 452 of 2007 arising out of Cheria Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 171 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Begusarai whereby he has acquitted the respondent nos. 2 &3 for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 9.11.2006, the appellant submitted a written report 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.356 of 2013 (2) dt.14-05-2013 2 / 5 to the Cheria Bariyarpur Police Station stating therein that about six years ago his daughter Chanda Kumari was married to respondent no. 2 Arun Sah. At the time of her marriage, the parents gifted her ornaments, utensils, clothes and Rs. 11,000/- in cash. After the marriage, her husband and in-laws demanded money as dowry. The appellant has further alleged that on 7.11.2006, the husband of the daughter of the appellant came for ‘Bidagri’ and at that time, he made a demand of Rs. 30,000/- in order to start some business. But, due to poverty, the said demand could not be fulfilled. However, the daughter of the appellant was taken to her sasural on 7th November, 2006 and on 9th November, 2006, the appellant received an information that his daughter has been killed by the accused persons due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. Accordingly, on the basis of the information given by the appellant Cheria Bariyapur P.S. Case No. 171 of 2006 was registered under Sections 498A and 304 B of the Indian Penal Code against respondent nos. 2 & 3 and others. The police investigated the case and submitted chargesheet no. 19 of 2007 under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent nos. 2 & 3 and kept the investigation pending against one Laxmi Sah. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai vide his order dated 13th March, 2007 took cognizance of the 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.356 of 2013 (2) dt.14-05-2013 3 / 5 offence and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The trial court framed charge under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent nos. 2 & 3 to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 Dinesh Sah and P.W. 2 Jawahar Sah stated in their deposition that while they went to the house of the accused persons they saw the appellant’s daughter Chanda lying unconscious and her family members were weeping there. They carried her to the clinic of Dr. B.K. Roy, who referred her to Begusarai for better treatment and while on way to Begusarai, the victim died. They have further stated that the daughter of the appellant was suffering from illness and due to illness, she died. P.W. 1 Dinesh Sah and P.W. 2 Jawahar Sah have not been declared hostile by the prosecution and as such their evidence would be admissible and the prosecution would be bound by their evidence. P.W. 5 Dr. Nirmal Kumar Choudhary and P.W. 6 Dr. Rabinder Kumar Sinha, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the victim Chanda Kumari clearly stated that no abnormality was found in the colour of the dead body of the 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.356 of 2013 (2) dt.14-05-2013 4 / 5 deceased. They stated that no smell or poison was found in the contents of the dead body. They have further stated that no antemortem injury over any part of the body was found. The prosecution has proved the postmortem report as Ext. 2 in course of trial. The postmortem report also corroborates these facts. P.W. 3, Manoj Jaiswal, uncle of the deceased and P.W. 4 Rajendra Sah, father of the deceased, have stated that the victim Chanda Kumari was married to respondent no. 2 Arun Sah about six years ago. They have stated about demand of dowry. They have also stated about demand of Rs. 30,000/- by the husband of the deceased in order to start some business. Of course, the father and uncle of the deceased have alleged that the victim was done to death by the accused persons for non-fulfilment of the demand of money but there is unimpeachable evidence on record which shows that the victim died due to illness. The accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to convict any person for instigating any person to commit suicide, it is to be established that the victim committed suicide. In the present case, the positive evidence of the two independent witnesses and the two doctors is that the victim died a 5 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.356 of 2013 (2) dt.14-05-2013 5 / 5 natural death. Taking into consideration all these facts, the trial court acquitted the accused persons and discharged them from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. The trial Court has given clear, cogent and convincing reasons for recording the judgment of acquittal. The judgment passed by the court below is neither erroneous nor perverse. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the present appeal. It is dismissed, accordingly. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)