The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.648 of 2002 WITH Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.905 of 2002 ------ (Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 24.09.2002 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Garhwa, in S.T. No.420 of 1998) ------ Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.648 of 2002 ------ Vishawanath Yadav, son of Somaru Yadav. Kabutari Devi, wife of Vishawanath Yadav. 1. 2. 3. Hari Yadav, son of Vishawanath Yadav. All residents of Village Sinjo, Police Station Ranka, District Garhwa. … … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … … Respondent WITH Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.905 of 2002 ------ Bihari Yadav, son of Vishwanath Yadav, resident of Village Sinjo, P.S. Ranka, District Garhwa. … … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … … Respondent ------ : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. : SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. PRESENT For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, with For the State
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Lina Shakti, Advocate : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ------ ------ J U D G M E N T By Court, : 17th December, 2024 These Criminal Appeals are preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 24.09.2002 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Garhwa, in S.T. No.420 of 1998, whereby and wherein, all the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 1 Appellant No.1 - Vishawanath Yadav, appellant No.2 - Kabutari Devi and appellant No.3 - Hari Yadav (in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.648 of 2002) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years under Section 304 B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 02 years under Section 498A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 06 months under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Sole appellant namely Bihari Yadav (in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.905 of 2002), was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304 B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 02 years under Section 498A IPC and 06 months under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Heard learned senior counsel representing the appellants and learned A.P.P. representing the State at length. Perused the material available on record. 3. At the outset, it has been intimated by learned A.P.P. that the sole appellant - Bihari Yadav (in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.905 of 2002), has already expired during pendency of this appeal. Affidavit to that effect has been produced and will be filed today. Considering her submission based on information, which she has received from the concerned Police Station, since there is no substitution petition, Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.905 of 2002, qua the sole appellant - Bihari Yadav, stands abated. 4. It has also been apprised to this Court that appellant No.1 - Vishawanath Yadav in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.648 of 2002 has expired during pendency of this appeal, as per the affidavit which has been sworn yesterday. Since, there is no substitution application, Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.648 of 2002, qua appellant No.1 - Vishawanath Yadav stands abated. 5. Now, this appeal is only confined to appellant No.2 - Kabutari Devi and appellant No.3 - Hari Yadav in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.648 of 2002, who are mother-in-law and brother-in-law 2 of the deceased respectively. 6. As per the prosecution case as it appears from the fardbeyan, that the daughter of the informant was married to Bihari Yadav (dead) five years prior to the date of occurrence. There was persistent torture and demand for dowry. As the informant could not fulfil their demand i.e. the demand for a cycle and a buffalo, the torture increased. It is alleged that the mother- in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and husband used to torture the deceased. It has been further mentioned in the F.I.R. that two days prior to the date of occurrence, the informant went there and stated that he will make arrangement after taking loan to fulfil the demand. His daughter was reluctant to stay in her matrimonial house and wanted to return but she was kept there. Two days thereafter, it was informed that the deceased died. 7. Based on the aforesaid fact, F.I.R. being Ranka P.S. Case No.100/96 was registered under Sections 304 (B) IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charge sheet was also submitted against the appellants. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellants pleaded not guilty and were put on trial. Charges were framed against them under Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 8. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case. 9. P.W.1 – Amit Yadav, P.W.2 – Uttam Yadav, P.W.3 Satyendra Yadav and P.W.7 – Bhola Prasad Yadav, have been turned hostile. 10. The Doctor namely Dr. Braj Kishore Mundari is P.W.-9, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased. 11. P.W.8 – Emdhyay Pal and P.W.10 – Ramdhyan Pal and P.W.11 – Anil Yadav, are formal witnesses. 12. The entire case rests upon the evidences of P.W.-4 - Shivnarayan Yadav, P.W.5 - Ramji Yadav and P.W.6 – Radhekrishna Yadav. 13. From the evidences of P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the demand of 3 dowry. The Trial Court after considering the evidence of these witnesses has also come to the same conclusion. We do not find any material to differ with the finding of the Trial court on this point. 14. So far as the date of marriage and date of death is concerned, we find that the Trial court has also found and it is an admitted case of the defence also that the death occurred within seven years from the date of marriage. 15. Another most important crucial aspect in a dowry death case is that the death should be by burning or otherwise than in normal circumstances. The prosecution has to prove the aforesaid. 16. In this case, the Doctor is P.W.-9 and the post-mortem report is marked as Ext.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was pushed in the well, as a result of which she got drowned. When we go through the evidence of the Doctor, we find that the Doctor said that he could not give a definite opinion with regard to the cause of death of the deceased. From the post- mortem report, we find that there is only one abrasion and that too on the knee joint measuring 1/2” x 1/2". How the deceased died has not been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. The viscera report is also not available. The prosecution has not brought any witness who had stated that they had retrieved the dead body from the well. In the post-mortem report, there is nothing to suggest that the death was due to drowning. As per the inquest report, the dead body was lying somewhere on the field on the northern side of the well. Further, the Investigating Officer has also not been examined in this case. 17. On the basis of the evidence, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established that the death was caused otherwise than in normal circumstances and admittedly this is not a case of burning. Thus, the third ingredient has not been established by the prosecution which is sine qua non to attract Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act. 18. Considering the aforesaid fact, we are inclined to acquit appellant No.2 - Kabutari Devi and appellant No.3 - 4 Hari Yadav. 19. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.648 of 2002 qua appellant No.2 - Kabutari Devi and appellant No.3 - Hari Yadav stands allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 24.09.2002 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-III, Garhwa, in S.T. No.420 of 1998, are hereby set aside qua appellant Nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.648 of 2002. As the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds, so are the bailers. 20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands
Decision
disposed of. 21. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court concerned. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Dated:- 17/12/2024 NAFR / Prashant 5