High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 12/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. (DR.) JUSTICE I. SHAH JUDGMENT & ORDER(CAV) The judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge(Ad-hoc), Hoja i, at Sankardev Nagar, Nagaon, convicting the appellants under Section 498-A I.P .C. and sentencing them thereby to undergo rigourous imprisonment for three year s and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default, stipulation of simple imprison ment for sixty days, has been put into challenge in this appeal. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. R. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of the State of Assam. 3. lows:- The facts, in brief, as projected by the prosecution, are as fol Hashirani Das(the deceased) was the daughter of Khagendra Das(PW -3) and Smti. Giribala Das(PW-2) as well as sister of Anuradha Das(PW-1). She wa s married to accused Chandan Das about 13 months back to the date of the inciden t. After the marriage Hashirani Das was living with her husband and inlaws i.e. Kheru Das and Smt. Shefali Das. After 2/3 months of marriage, Hashirani came to her parental house and told her parents that the accused persons have demanded m oney. The victim’s parents gave Rs. 20,000/- to their inlaws. In the night of 0 6.04.2004, Hashirani was severely assaulted by her husband and in-laws and she b reathed her last on 07.04.2004 in the house of the accused persons. The parents of victim were informed by Dhunia Das who happens to be son-in-law of the accuse d persons that Hashirani, all on a sudden, became unconscious and falling down d ead. When PW-1, 2 and 3 visited the house of the deceased persons, they noticed injuries on the dead body. PW-1, brother of the accused, lodged the FIR which wa s registered as Lanka PS Case No. 36/2004 under Section 304(B)/34 IPC. During investigation, inquest on the dead body was held. Stateme nts of witnesses, which threw light on the incident, were recorded. The dead bod y was subjected to autopsy. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet under S ection 304(B)/34 IPC was filed against the accused Kheru Das, Chandan Das and Sh efali Das. After committal of the case and on the basis of the materials, t he accused was charged under Section 304(B)/498(A)/34 IPC.. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 1 wi tness was examined as court-witness. The accused persons, in their statements re corded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations levelled against them. However, they did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial Court acquitted the accused persons from the charge un der Section 304(B) IPC, but, held that the evidence was sufficient to hold the a ccused persons guilty under Section 498(A) IPC read with Section 34 IPC.. They w ere accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforenoted. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused appellants, su bmitted that the circumstances highlighted by the trial Court do not lead to a c onclusion that the accused were guilty of the offence as alleged. Learned counse l for the State respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the tri al Court. 4. It is in the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3, i.e. brother, mother an d father of the victim, that after 2/3 months of marriage, the victim told them that she was assaulted. PWs-1 and 2 stated tghat as per demand of the accused Ch andan Das, they paid him Rs. 20,000/-.PW-3 (father of the deceased) stated that his daughter(deceased) after 1/2 months of marriage, told him that her husband w ants money for doing business. Accordingly, he paid Rs. 20,000/- to Chandan Das. In cross-examination, he admitted that accused Chandan Das requested him to hel p him with money to open his shop. He promised to refund the money and then PW-3 paid him Rs. 20,000/-. 5. PW-4, Bubul Hazarika, and PW-5, Parimal Das, are independent wit nesses. PW-4 stated that the victim had quarrels with her husband and in-laws bu t he could not say what was the reason. He had noticed quarrels on 3/4 occasions . PW-5 is a reported witness. PW-5 however stated that he never heard that the a ccused persons ever demanded money/dowry. 6. It transpires from the evidence of Investigating Officer that PW s-1, 2 and 3 did not state the I.O. that there was any dowry demand. They only s tated that they had paid Rs. 20,000/- as per request of accused Chandan Das with assurance that he will repay the same. The payment of the aforesaid amount was made after 1-3 months of the marriage of the deceased with accused Chandan Das. Therefore, there is nothing on record that soon before the occurrence, the victi m was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand. PWs-1 and 2 stated that they suspected that the victim died due to assault on account of dowry demand. It is in the evidence of Dr. P. K. Sarmah that the dead body of 7. Hashirani Das was brought to the Civil Hospital in the night of 07.04.2004 and t he autopsy on the dead body was conducted by him on 08.04.2004. Interestingly en ough, C.W.-1(Sanjib Barhoi, Circle Officer) stated that he received the requisit ion to conduct inquest on the dead body on 07.04.2004 and on 08.04.2004, the inq uest on the dead body was held. C.W.-1 could not say whether he visited the plac e of occurrence or not. He stated that he prepared his report at his work place and the contents of the inquest report was written by the Investigating Officer where he put his signature. PW-6, the Investigating Officer stated that as per h is requisition, the Circle Officer visited the place of occurrence and held inqu est on the dead body and then, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examinatio n. It appears from the inquest report also that the inquest on the dead body was held on 08.04.2004. Dr. P. K. Sharmah, who held the post-mortem examination on the d 8. ead body of the deceased, found as follows: (cid:28)A stout female body with negative rigor mortis. Evidence of blunt object injury on abdomen and back of thorax. Bruises present in the abdominal wall and thorac ic wall. Fracture of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs. Pluera injured. Both lungs collapsed with blood in the pleural cavity. Evidence of blunt object wound over abodomen linear fashion. Peritoneum injured with blood in its cavity. Liever and spleen ruptured. Kidney intact. All other o rgans were found healthy. Evidence of blunt object injuries over abdomen wall and back and chest leading t o damage of internal organs. Injuries in liver and spleen are ante-mortem. (cid:29) In the opinion of the Doctor, death was due to shock and haemorr hage as a result of injuries sustained. The post-mortem report is carbon copy an d it was prepared by somebody else and not by PW-7. PW-7 could not say who wrote the contents of the post-mortem report. 9. As per the inquest report, there was no injury mark on the abdom en or back of the thorax but PW-7, the Doctor, found injuries in the abdominal w all and thoracic wall. The inquest report say there was mark of injury on leg an d buttock but no such injury is mentioned in the post-mortem report. 10. As discussed above, in this case, there is no direct evidence th at the victim was subjected to torture or harassment on account of dowry demand. Where a case squarely rests on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilty can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are fo und to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In the case of Hanuman t Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, it was observed that - (cid:28)It is well to remember that where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, t he circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in th e first instance, be fully established, and all the facts so established, should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again the c ircumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they be such as t o exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, th ere must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable g round for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been don e by the accused. (cid:29)