Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.540 of 2012 ====================================================== Surendra Sah @ Surendra Saw son of Muneshwar Saw, R/o village- Amarwa, P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) 2 20-06-2012 This appeal has come under the heading for admission but considering the evidence which has thoroughly been discussed in the judgment, it appears that the case is fit to be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Certified copy of depositions have been made available by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The sole appellant was put on trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 660 of 2010/Sessions Trial No. No. 83 of 2011 and was convicted under [STATUTE] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Besides that he was convicted under [STATUTE] and for that he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years. Sentences were ordered to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.540 of 2012 (2) dt.20-06-2012 2 run concurrently. The daughter of the informant was married with Surendra Sah three years prior to the lodging of the case. She was murdered on 9.6.2010. The informant Ganesh Sah alleged that she has been done away by none other than by her husband. He further alleged that besides her husband, other inlaws were the conspirators. On the basis of written report Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 103 of 2010 GR No. 1018A of 2010 was registered and investigation started. After investigation chargesheet was submitted under [STATUTE] against Surendra Sah. Subsequently chargesheet was also submitted against Raju Sah whereas investigation remained pending against others. Cognizance was taken and after commitment Surendra Sah, who is the appellant, here faced trial vide Sessions Trial No. 660 of 2010 whereas Raju Sah faced trial vide Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2011 but both the cases were amalgamated and a common judgment was passed whereby co-accused Raju Sah was acquitted and the appellant was convicted. It appears from the certified copy of the depositions as well as the records altogether 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 Jitendra Kumar Sah has stated that the wife of Surendra Sah died on account of her ailment and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.540 of 2012 (2) dt.20-06-2012 3 this matter was informed to her father who came and thereafter cremation progressed. This witness has been declared hostile. PW 2 Pappu Kumar Sah has stated that wife of Surendra Sah was unwell and on account of that she died. He has also been declared hostile. PW 3 Shankar Sah was tendered by the prosecution and in cross-examination he deposed that wife of Surendra Sah died on account of ailment. PW 4 Gautam Pandey is the author of the FIR and he has stated that the FIR was in his writing and it was dictated at the behest of Ganesh Sah. About the occurrence he has stated that he has accompanied Ganesh Sah along with 4-5 persons to the house of the deceased and when he went, then he saw the victim serious. She succumbed thereafter. At that time her husband (appellant) was outside the village. She was cremated. In cross-examination he stated that he put his signature at the behest of the Officer Incharge. Therefore, evidence of this witness is of no help to the prosecution. PW 5 was tendered by the prosecution. PW 6 is the informant. He has deposed in examination –in-chief that he lodged a false case. He has stated that his daughter Tunni Devi married with Surendra Sah was dead at her husband’s house. He received telephonic information and went there. He has stated that his daughter was carrying good relationship with her inlaws and this witness has no complain against the appellant or his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.540 of 2012 (2) dt.20-06-2012 4 family members. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination he has stated that at the time of death his daughter’s husband (appellant) was in Gujarat. All the witnesses brought on behalf of the prosecution remained evasive. The order of conviction has been recorded only on the basis of evidences of official witnesses, namely, PW 7 the doctor and PW 8 the Investigating Officer. PW 7 has held the post mortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased. There was not even one witness before the trial court and apparently there was no material upon which any opinion could be formed that it was a culpable homicide. On the basis of evidence of the doctor the death can be proved but for proving charge that such and such accused person has committed such offence, the requirement was that the evidence must be brought on the record. In the present case, conviction is not under [STATUTE] for which Evidence Act may come to rescue. Conviction is under [STATUTE] . Unless evidence is brought that the victim was killed by the accused it cannot be presumed that she has been killed. Without any evidence the appellant has been unnecessarily convicted and sentenced and he has been forced to come before this Court. There was no evidence at all justifying the order of conviction. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.540 of 2012 (2) dt.20-06-2012 5 Therefore, it would be abuse of the process of the Court to keep such case pending and pass a formal order after several years and that order will be only of acquittal. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance

Applicable IPC Section: 304B

Statute Text:
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.