High Court
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 342 of 1998 (P) with Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 432 of 1998 (P) Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.07.1998 (sentence passed on 13.07.1998) passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1997/20 of 1997. --- 1. Puran Tatwa 2. Sunia Devi Arun Tatwa … … Appellants (in Cr. Appeal DB No. 342 of 1998) … … Appellant (in Cr. Appeal DB No. 432 of 1998) Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) … … Respondent --- For the Appellants For the Respondent : Mrs. Abha Verma, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. --- Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR --- C.A.V. on – 18.07.2024 Pronounced on – 31.07.2024 Heard Mrs. Abha Verma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Since, both these appeals arise out of common judgment,
Decision
both are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.07.1998 (sentence passed on 13.07.1998) passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1997/20 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and Section 328/34 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 328/34 of I.P.C. 4. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Batan Nadaf wherein it has been stated that he had solemnized marriage of his daughter Anju Devi about 7 years back to Arun Tatwa. It has been alleged that today i.e., on 04.09.1996, a relative of Puran Tatwa came and informed him that his daughter is depressed and he should come and meet his daughter. At this the informant went to Liladah village where he found his daughter dead and smell of elderine was coming out from her mouth. Her husband and parents-in-law did not reveal anything, but he received the information from the villagers that his daughter had died in the night itself. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Poriyahat P. S. Case No. 105 of 1996 was instituted under Sections 302 B/328/34 of I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 74 of 1997/20 of 1997. Charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 328/34 and Section 304 B/34 of I.P.C., but subsequently the charge was altered to one under Section 328/34 and 302/34 of I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. 7. P.W. 1 – Geno Tatwa @ Genua Tatwa did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. P.W. 2 – Ganesh Tatwa has stated that on information that Anju Devi has been poisoned by her husband and parents-in-law, he had gone to Liladah where he had seen the dead body lying in the courtyard. He had met with the accused persons who had not even satisfactorily replied and had absconded thereafter. He had come to know that there was regular quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased and the deceased was poisoned by the accused persons at night. He has identified his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit 1. 2 In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was told about the incident by the uncle of the deceased. The name of the uncle of the deceased is Tejo Nadaf. He had gone to the matrimonial house of Anju Devi on one or two occasions for some work and he was treated well by the inmates of the house. 9. P.W. 3 – Jaso Devi is the mother of the deceased who has stated that Genua had informed her that her daughter is sick at which she and her husband had gone to Liladah. On the way, they had met an old woman who disclosed that her daughter has died. When they reached Liladah village, they had found her daughter lying in the courtyard. She had met the accused persons. When she removed the cloth covering the dead body, she had a sense of a foul smell coming, which meant that her daughter had been poisoned. In cross-examination, she has deposed that Genua had informed him about the occurrence at 6:00 A.M. The occurrence was not informed to Tejo Nadab immediately, but after return from Liladah, he was informed. Arun Tatwa started weeping while Puran Tatwa did the same. Ganesh Tatwa was his brother. She has stated that it was Ganesh Tatwa who had advised her to file a case when he met her after 2-3 days of the date of occurrence. Arun Tatwa used to commit assault upon her daughter and no complaint was ever made to the police. 10. P.W. 4 – Jageshwar Tatwa has stated that the informant is his brother-in-law. The incident is of 11 months back when Batan Nadaf informed him that his daughter has been murdered by administering poison. When he reached Liladah village, he found the dead body lying in the courtyard. He did not meet the accused persons. On his advice, Batan had gone to the police station and the police had come at around 4- 4:30 P.M. The wife of Batan disclosed to the police that her daughter has been poisoned. He has identified his signature on inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit 1/A. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Batan had disclosed to him about the murder of his daughter Anju. He had not disclosed the police that Batan has stated before him about his daughter being poisoned. After the marriage, he had on several occasions gone to the 3 house of the accused and he had a good relationship with them. He has stated that in the field, farmers sprinkle fertilizers and various types of insecticides and if somebody take water mixed with the pesticides, it would be fatal. 11. P.W. 5 – Most. Turia Devi @ Kusma is the grand-mother of the deceased Anju Devi. She has deposed that about 7 months back, when she was in his house, the brother of Batan Nadaf informed her that her grand-daughter had been murdered by his husband and in-laws by administering poison upon her. She has gone to Liladah village and found the body of the deceased lying on a cot. She started crying and the accused persons fled away from the house. She has stated that the accused persons always used to quarrel with the deceased. There was a foul smell coming from the mouth of the deceased. In cross-examination, she has deposed that when she went to the house of Arun Tatwa, she had seen Arun Tatwa, Puran Tatwa and the mother of Arun Tatwa present. She had never gone to the house of Arun Tatwa since after the marriage and she had never met Arun and Anju after their marriage as Anju always remained in her matrimonial house. Once Anju Devi had fled away from her matrimonial house and then her parents brought her back and thereafter she had remained in the said house. 12. P.W. 6 – Batan Nadaf is the informant and father of the deceased Anju Devi. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place 11 months back and he was in his house when Genua Tatwa informed him that his daughter is ill. He along with his wife had gone to Liladah village and on the way they had met an old woman who disclosed that his daughter had died at night, the reasons she could not say, though she told that his daughter had worked throughout yesterday. When he went to the house of Puran Tatwa, he found the dead body of his daughter kept on a cot. When he went near the dead body, he could sense the odour of elderine. He later on came to know that the accused persons had committed the murder of his daughter. When other persons assembled from Jalgaon and Danre, the accused persons had fled away. He went to the police station and got his fard beyan recorded. He has 4 stated that his daughter was subjected to cruelty and 8 months back, the accused persons after assaulting her had ousted her from her matrimonial house. In cross-examination, he has deposed that Anju was married when she was 10 years old. When he had reached Liladah, all the accused persons were present and there were many outsiders also whom he could not recognize. Nobody had wept at his feet or at the feet of his wife. He had never met with the sub-inspector of the police. His daughter was married to Arun Tatwa. About 7-8 months before the occurrence, he had gone to Liladah. He was not given proper treatment by his daughter and son-in-law. When he had gone to Danre, his daughter and mother-in-law had stated about the ill-treatment and only after the compromise they had taken her daughter to Liladah. He was not having good terms with her parents-in-law 13. P.W. 7 – Dr. Kulanand Choudhary had conducted autopsy on the body of Anju Devi and Dr. A. K. Jha had found the following injuries: (i) Rigormortis present in the lower limbs (ii) Body emitting foul odour. Abdomen distended. P.M. blames over the face, neck and truck. Blood tinged froth coming out of both the nostrils. No ante-mortem injuries present over the body. The viscera was sent for chemical examination. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked as exhibit 2. The cause of death could not be ascertained in the post mortem. 14. P.W. 8 – Anil Kumar Singh has stated that he had gone to Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna and received the viscera report. He has proved the viscera report which has been marked as Exhibit 3. He has filed the charge-sheet after the completion of investigation. 15. P.W. 9 – Pramod Kumar Jha has examined the viscera and endosulfan was detected which is a choloro-organic pesticide commonly used in agriculture for killing pests and is a poison. He has identified his signature in the Viscera report as well as signature of P. B. Sharan and Y. Poddar which have been marked as Exhibit 3/c, 3/a and 3/b respectively. 5 16. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the incident. 17. Mrs. Abha Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. It has been submitted that no motive has been assigned to the appellants and the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. The parents of the victim were informed about the incident by P.W. 1 who has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The evidence of the informant (P.W. 6) clearly reveals that he was not having a good relationship with either the parents-in-law of his daughter or with his daughter and son-in-law. There has been no assertion with respect to demand of dowry. The investigating officer has also not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. 18. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. has submitted that there are strong circumstances of the deceased being administered endosulfan. He has referred to some of the evidence which indicates about the deceased being subjected to torture. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 20. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The daughter of the informant died at her matrimonial house and the Viscera report discloses presence of endosulfan, the pesticide which if consumed can be fatal. The evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 assumes significance since they are mother and father of the deceased – Anju Devi. P.W. 3 has fleetingly referred to the assault committed by Arun Tatwa (husband) upon her daughter, but at the same time, she has admitted that no complain was made anywhere against such conduct of the husband. Though, P.W. 6 has stated about the assault committed upon his daughter by the accused and her ouster about 8 months prior to the death. In his cross- examination, P.W. 6 has stated that when he had gone to the matrimonial house of her daughter about 7-8 months back, he was not properly treated by his daughter and son-in-law. His relationship with the 6 parents-in-law of the daughter was also not cordial. P.W. 5 who is the grand-mother of the deceased has stated that her grand-daughter had never come to her parents’ house after her marriage. She has also stated about the deceased having once fled away from her matrimonial house and even if this is a fact, the same is understandable considering the tender age of the deceased when her marriage was solemnized with Arun Tatwa. What therefore can be culled out is that the daughter of the informant was having a cordial relationship with her husband and in- laws and whatever be the reasons, even P.W. 6 was not properly treated by his daughter when he has last gone to meet her. It is also apparent that no demand of dowry was made from the side of the accused persons. It also appears from the evidences of P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 that the accused persons were present in the house where they had gone to see the victim on being informed about the incident. In view of the evidence of the witnesses, it can be concluded that the death was neither homicidal nor suicidal. Accidental intake of water mixed with elderine cannot be ruled out, as according to P.W. 6 an old woman had met her on the way who had disclosed about the deceased working the whole day and the death having occurred at night. The learned trial court has not considered theses aspects of the matter. The impugned judgment therefore cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 21. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.07.1998 (sentence passed on 13.07.1998) passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1997/20 of 1997. 22. 23. These appeals are allowed. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 31st day of July, 2024 R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3 7