Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.399 of 2007 (Against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2007 and Order of sentence dated 22.03.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Patna in S. Tr. No. 213 of 1995/308 of 2001) =========================================================== Ambika Rajak S/o late Ranjan Rajak R/o Mohalla Saristabad, P.S. Gardanibagh District - Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s --with-- Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 342 of 2007 =========================================================== 1. Ram Shakhi Devi W/o late Rajan Rajak 2. Pramila Devi W/o Birmani Rajak Both are residents of Mohalla Saristabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, District - Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In Both Appeals) For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.N.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Mr. Krishanandan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra,A.P.P.(in Cr. Appeal No.399/07 Mr. S.N. Prasad,A.P.P.(in Cr. Appeal No.342/07 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-03-2012 Mandhata Singh, J. 1. Written report of Chhunu Rajak has been made basis for the F.I.R. which, in brief, is that his sister Rebi Devi was married with accused-appellant Ambika Rajak. Marriage solemnized in a temple at Agamkuan. There was no demand of dowry at the occasion of marriage. It is further said that informant sister’s husband made a demand of Rs. 10,000/- after coming to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.399 of 2007 dt.13-03-2012 2 informant’s house. Demand was constant from his sister by accused-appellant Ambika Rajak. His sister also told him when he went to meet her at Saristabad that demand was constantly made by accused-appellant Ambika Rajak. It has further been stated that when the informant went to his sister, he came to know that his sister had died and neighbours told/informed about killing of informant’s sister by accused-appellant Ambika Rajak, his mother, elder brother Birmani Rajak and younger brother Naresh Rajak on 11.06.1994. 2. Trial is ended in conviction and sentence to accused-appellants under [STATUTE] . by passing the impugned judgment and order, validity of which has been questioned through filing of these appeals. 3. Learned counsel appearing for accused- appellants submits that no doubt assertion made in the F.I.R. is corroborated by witnesses including informant of the case but constituting no offence at all. Conviction is for the offence under [STATUTE] . Save and except demand of Rs. 10,000/-, there is no assertion even that same was in connection with marriage defining the same as dowry. If that is dowry then also causing of cruelty of any nature is lacking initially in making the allegation certainly is not corroborated by any of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.399 of 2007 dt.13-03-2012 3 witnesses. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants is particular on the point that in absence of demand of dowry and causing of cruelty no offence is made out under [STATUTE] . in absence of which 304B of I.P.C. is also not made out. 4. For the killing, there is suspicion basing statement of neighbours who never appeared to corroborate the same clearly indicating about absence of any eye witness. Further, submission of learned counsel is that deceased earlier was married elsewhere and without divorce she married accused-appellant Ambika Rajak, para-10 of P.W.1 is referred on this point which is to the effect that earlier to marriage of his sister with this accused- appellant Ambika Rajak, his sister was married in Paliganj and further states in same paragraph that his sister was left by her first husband, so there was no occasion to take divorce. Wife or husband if leaves any of them then that can be defined as desertion, a good ground for divorce but never divorce. This much is only addition to the grounds for constituting no offence under [STATUTE] . Once commitment of offence under [STATUTE] . is not established then no question arises about causing disappearance of evidence of the said offence, as there can be no screening of the offender from legal punishment. 5. These are the areas which have not been gone Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.399 of 2007 dt.13-03-2012 4 through may be said ignored by the Trial Court, so the conclusion reached for conviction is not liable to be sustained. 6. On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstance of the case, both the criminal appeals are allowed. The Judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2007and Order of sentence dated 22.03.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Patna in S. Tr. No. 213 of 1995/308 of 2001 are set aside and accused-appellants of both the appeals are acquitted of their respective charges and set at liberty. Of them, accused- appellant, Ambika Rajak of Cr. Appeal No. 399 of 2007 is in custody is directed to be released at once, if not wanted in any other case. 7. Accused-appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 342 of 2007 are discharged from liabilities of their bail bonds as they are on bail. 8. Office is directed to send the records to the Trial Court along with the copy of this Judgment. Shail/-N.A.F.R. (Mandhata Singh, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.