Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.50 of 1989 Against the judgment dated 31st May of 1989, passed by Shri Kailash Behari Verma, 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 473 of 1986. =========================================================== The State of Bihar .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Sidh Nath Singh, Son of Feku Singh 2. Dharam Nath Singh @ Muna Singh, Son of Bachai Singh 3. Bachai Singh, Son of Brij Nandan Singh 4. Prabhawati Devi, W/O- Bachai Pd. Singh 5. Brij Nandan Singh @ Brija Singh, Son of Feku Singh 6. Jag Mohan Singh @ Chunchun Singh, Son of Deputy Singh 7. Shri Nath Singh, Son of Feku Singh All residents of Village – Sath, P.S. – Itarhi, District – Bhojpur. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP. For the Respondents : No One. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 18-09-2012 Nobody appears for the respondents, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State is present. 2. In Government Appeal (DB) No. 50 of 1989, the State of Bihar has assailed the judgment dated 31st May of 1989, passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 473 of 1986, arising out of Itarhi P.S. Case No. 13 of 1984 and has acquitted Sidhnath Singh, Dharmnath Singh @ Munna Singh, Bachai Singh, Prabhawati Devi, Brijnandan Singh, Jag Mohan Singh and Shri Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.50 of 1989 dt.18-09-2012 2 Nath Singh who were charged under [STATUTE] and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The accused Fula Devi wife of accused Brija Singh @ Brijnandan Singh died during pendency of the case and proceeding against her was dropped on 28th May 1988. The surviving seven accused persons have faced the trial under [STATUTE] and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the charge that they have murdered Nigam Devi, daughter of P.W. 5 Ram Pratap Singh and P.W. 6 Sita Pati Devi in the night of 3/4th March, 1986 at Village Sath, P.S. – Itarhi, District – Bhojpur in furtherance of common intention. 4. Nigam Devi was married on 21.05.1985 to accused Dharmnath Singh @ Munna Singh, Son of accused Bachai Singh and she went to her matrimonial house 22.05.1985. The articles gifted were not accepted and demand of cow, watch and tape recorder was regularly made. The deceased sent a letter showing the demand and misbehaviour towards her. The informant received news through P.W. 3 Rauf Mian. The facts were verified and it was found that the accused persons have played foul by killing Nigam Devi on account of her inability to give the desired dowry articles. 5. Charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charges were Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.50 of 1989 dt.18-09-2012 3 framed and explained to the accused. When they pleaded innocence, the trial proceeded. 6. Before the trial court, the prosecution adduced evidence of Santosh Kumar (P.W. 1), Awanish Kumar Singh (P.W. 2), Rauf Mian (P.W. 3), Ramjee Singh (P.W. 4), Ram Pratap Singh (P.W. 5), Sita Pati Devi (P.W. 6), Ramayan Singh (P.W. 7), Mahendra Ram (P.W. 8), Dr. P.N. Rai (P.W. 9), Mansoor Alam (P.W. 10) and Anirudh Pd. Sinha (P.W. 11). The defence examined Islam Mian (D.W. 1), Ram Preet Pathak (D.W. 2), Ramkesh Singh (D.W. 3), Harihar Singh (D.W. 4), Babban Singh (D.W. 5), Jai Shankar Singh (D.W. 6), Subedar Ram (D.W. 7), Bachcha Singh (D.W. 8) and Bharat Prasad Singh (D.W. 9). Petition dated 17.03.1986 filed by Ramjee Singh is exhibited as (Ext.1), signature of Ramjee Singh and Ayodhya Chaudhary on the production list is exhibited as (Ext. 2 to 2/1), signature of Ramjee Singh on the inquest report is exhibited as (Ext. 2/2), signature of Ramjee Singh and Pashupati Paswan on the production list is exhibited as (Ext. 2/3 & 2/4), signature of Sitapati Devi on the petition dated 17.03.1986 is exhibited as (Ext. 2/5), signature of Ramain Singh on the petition dated 17.03.1986 is exhibited as (Ext. 2/6), signature of Ramain Singh on the fardbeyan exhibited as (Ext. 2/7), the post- mortem report is exhibited as (Ext. 3), the F.I.R. is exhibited as (Ext. 4), the production list is exhibited as (Ext. 5), para 56 of the case diary Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.50 of 1989 dt.18-09-2012 4 is exhibited as (Ext. 6), the inquest report is exhibited as (Ext. 7) and the seizure list is exhibited as (Ext. 8) were the documents which were relied upon by the prosecution. The defence exhibited a photo of deceased Nigam Devi is exhibited as (Ext. A), photo of Nigam Devi (alive) is exhibited as (Ext. B), certified copy of the judgment dated 13.09.1985 passed in GR Case No. 268 of 1982, TR No. 1213 of 1985 is exhibited as (Ext. C), certified copy of the order dated 20.12.1981 passed in Case No. 183 (M) 81, TR No. 129 of 1981 is exhibited as (Ext. D), certified copy of the order dated 24.12.1988 passed in consolidation case no. 1 of 1981-82 is exhibited as (Ext. D/1), certified copy of the order dated 27.02.1979 passed in case no. 504 (M) 77 TR. 85 of 1979 is exhibited as (Ext. D/2), certified copy of depositions Mahabir Singh recorded on 05.06.1981 is exhibited as (Ext. E) were the documents which were relied upon by the prosecution. 7. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The trial court after analyzing the evidence found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the accused and so the order of acquittal was passed. 8. There was no witness of the occurrence. The circumstantial evidence was brought on record by the prosecution. Case basing upon the circumstantial evidence has to est

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.