Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 398 OF 1998 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 421 OF 1998 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 24TH SEPTEMBER, 1998 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER, 1998 PASSED BY SHRI MAZHAR IMAM, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-VI, BEGUARAI IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 488 OF 1995/116 OF 1998 ARISING OUT OF BALLIAPS CASE NO. 86 OF 1995 =========================================================== 1. DINESH SAH, SON OF GIRIDHARI SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHOTI BALIA, POLICE STATION BALIA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI .... .... APPELLANT (IN CR. APP. NO. 398 OF 1998) WITH 1. MD. SIRAJ, SON OF MD. UMAR, 2. GIRIDHARI SAH, SON OF LATE LAKSHMI SAH 3. JALO DEVI, WIE OF GIRIDHARI SAH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHOTI BALIA, POLICE STATION BALIA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI .... .... APPELLANTS (IN CR. APP. NO. 421 OF 1998) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT (IN ALL APPEALS) =========================================================== APPEARANCE : (IN BOTH THE APPEALS) FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR. ARUN KUMAR NO. 1, ADVOCATE MS. SUDHA AMBASTHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MS. ABHA SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-12-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. The four appellants of the above noted two appeals have been found guilty under [STATUTE] and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under [STATUTE] . No separate sentence has Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.398 of 1998 dt.11-12-2012 2 / 10 2 been imposed for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . 2. Dinesh Sah (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 1998) is the husband of the victim lady, he has remained in custody for 3 years and 7 months in this case. Giridhari Sah (appellant no. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 1998) is the father-in-law of the victim lady, whereas Jalo Devi (appellant no. 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 1998) is the mother-in-law of the victim lady. Md. Siraj (appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 1998), who is a tailor by profession and supposedly a friend of the husband, has also been made accused in this case. 3. The First Information Report was instituted by Nago Paswan, who is the village Chowkidar. According to his statement, he had learnt that the wife of Dinesh Sah had died during the night. He went to the house of Dinesh Sah and found that he was not present in the house and he came to know that Dinesh Sah had beaten his wife on the previous night and had forcibly administered her poison. When the condition of the wife of Dinesh Sah deteriorated, Dinesh Sah took his wife to the hospital. When he reached the hospital, he found that Veena Devi was lying dead. Thereafter, he instituted this case. 4. It may be noted here that the doctor (PW 8 Dr. Prem Chand Kumar) who has conducted postmortem on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.398 of 1998 dt.11-12-2012 3 / 10 3 05.06.1995 has found that there were no postmortem or ante-mortem injury inflicted on her body, accept that her organs were congested. No legation mark was found on the neck or any other part of the body and as such, the doctor could not ascertain the cause of death, and therefore, the viscera was taken out, sealed and sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination. The fact that no external injury was found on the body of the deceased would indicate that the case made out in the First Information Report, that the deceased had been severely assaulted during the night, is not substantiated by the medical evidence. In the cross- examination, the doctor has stated that she could not detect the smell of poisoning when she conducted the postmortem. At the same time, she has said that the physical examination cannot be the only ground for coming to the conclusion that poison was administered to the deceased. She has offered a voluntary statement that the case does not appear to be one of diarrhea. 5. This Court will now go directly to the report of the Forensic Laboratory (Exhibit-7). The Forensic Laboratory report reveals that the viscera were received in the Forensic Laboratory on 04.09.1996. The jar contained some dark brown fluid, which could have been decomposed tissues of viscera. It is quite obvious that the doctor has found that the viscera were already decomposed. In such circumstances, the doctor Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.398 of 1998 dt.11-12-2012 4 / 10 4 has opined that he detected THIMET in the dark brown fluid described above. It is said that THIMET is a organe- phosphorus pesticides, which is commonly used in agriculture for killing pests and is highly poisonous. Exhibit-7 appears to be a photocopy of the original document. This document has been provided by PW 10 Mahendra Sah, as the original has been sent to the Police Station. The date of the report is 27.09.1996. It was prepared one year after the viscera were sent to the Forensic Laboratory. It may be noted that as per the statement of the doctor, PW 8, the following organs were preserved in hypertonic saline solution in a sealed jar and sent to the Forensic Laboratory. They were liver, spleen, left lung, heart, stomach with its content and kidney. The Forensic Laboratory refers to only one part of the body, which was supposedly sent to the Forensic Laboratory, which is a decomposed viscera. It is, therefore, difficult for this Court to rely solely on the report of the Forensic Laboratory to hold the appellants guilty of administering poison to the deceased. It appears that the Investigating Officer of this case has not considered the procedure to be adopted while sending samples of the viscera to the Forensic Laboratory, as per the provisions of the Police Manual. 6. Taking all these facts into account, the Court will now examine the oral evidence led in this ca

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.