Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.198 of 1999 (Against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.07.1999 and Order of sentence dated 12.07.1999 passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 1997) =========================================================== 1. Hira Chaupal @ Hira Lal Choupal S/o Kuldip Chaupal 2. Kuldip Choupal S/o late Mushero Choupal 3. Paltania Devi W/o Kuldip Choupal All resident of Village Dhanga P.S. Jamalpur, District-Darbhanga .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan, Mr. Thakur Brajesh Singh Mr Md. Sufiyan. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.N. Prasad, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-04-2012 Mandhata Singh, J. Written application of one Mahendra Chaupal has been made basis for F.I.R. of this case which, in brief, is that his daughter was married with appellant, Hira Lal Choupal S/o Kuldeep Choupal. She came to her in-laws after the marriage and from the date of her Bidai, tape, cycle, wrist watch was being demanded by the in-laws. This much was told by his daughter when she came his (informant‟s) home. An assurance was given on behalf of the informant. His daughter was given threatening and torture, thereafter on 21.08.1996, informant went to his daughter‟s sasural for her Bidai, he came to know that his daughter was killed and her dead body was disposed of. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.198 of 1999 dt.17-04-2012 2 Specifically, it is alleged that she was stabbed on her neck, thereafter on stomach and dead body was disposed of to screen themselves from the legal liabilities. 2. Trial is ended in conviction of accused- appellants for the offence under [STATUTE] . 3. In all, 5 witnesses are examined in the case. They are P.W.1 Chhoti Devi, mother of the deceased, P.W.2 Bechan Chaupal, P.W.3 Premi Chaupal, P.W.4 Mahendra Chaupal, father of the deceased and informant of the case, P.W.5 Mithilesh Singh. 4. P.W. 5 is a formal witness only and P.W. 3 is expressing his ignorance about happening of any incident. He has been declared hostile but of no avail for either parties as making no statement in favour of any of them. P.W.2 is a witness to state the marriage, Bidai and killing of informant‟s daughter at appellants hand but coming to know the same from informant, so he is a hearsay witness, admitted to the parties also that no conviction can be based relying him. Now, P.Ws. 1 and 4 remain to discuss if can be found corroborating the prosecution case for conviction. Both these witnesses are stating about marriage, bidai, demand and killing. Admittedly, dead body was disposed of, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.198 of 1999 dt.17-04-2012 3 either criminated making the same known to all including the informant and his family members or secretly disposed of. 5. There is no witness on the record to state that incident of killing was in his presence. So, the circumstance remains to reach any conclusion. Conviction is for the offences under [STATUTE] . Presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act plays a vital role but that requires some ingredients to be fulfilled. Section 113- B of the Evidence Act, 1872 runs as follows: “113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death”. 6. Thus, it is clear that for application of presumption for commitment of dowry death one of the ingredients is that the deceased should be subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before the death. According to the learned counsel, this ingredient is lacking in the case in statement of P.Ws.1 or 4. Statement of PW.1 in paragraph-2 is that after gauna, her husband was going to her daughter to meet her. He was allowed to meet but they were Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.198 of 1999 dt.17-04-2012 4 making demand of watch, cycle and radio without referring harassment or cruelty. Statement of P.W.4 on this point is that after the marriage, his daughter went to her Sasural but at that occasion, a demand was made of watch, radio, tape and cycle. This demand was repeated when she was allowed to come to his house. After 8 days of her coming to informant‟s house, she was taken by in-laws but there is no reference as any demand was made at that time. After coming to her in-laws for the second time, if any, demand was made is even lacking in the statement of this witness, rather it is said that after some days when he asked in-laws for Bidai of her daughter, there was Fasad (violence), may be said ill treatment with the informant. Thereafter, it is stated that for the last time when he went to his daughter for her vidai he came to know that she was killed. 7. Any death can be said dowry death if the same is result of burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. Due to non-availability of the dead body, no one appeared in the case to state that there was any burn injury or bodily injury or death was not under normal circumstance. Statement of these two witnesses is that his daughter was killed but without any corroboration from eye witness, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, may Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.198 of 1999 dt.17-04-2012 5 never be believed for conviction otherwise also submission on his behalf is that death was informed to the informant and his family members, dead body was cremated, Shradh was performed and father remained pr

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.