IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.689 of 2005 With Criminal Appeal (DB) No.697 of 2005 ------- Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2005 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha,Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in Sessions Trial No.158 of 2005. ======================================================== Kampani Lal Ganesh son of Madhu Singh, resident of Rasia,P.S.Pouakholi, District Kishanganj .... .... Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar ---- .... ... Respondent (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.689 of 2005) And 1. Madhu Singh son of Late Dhadhilal Singh 2. Tisham Ganesh @ Tisham Ganesh son of Madhu Singh 3. Pankhori Devi wife of Madhu Singh all are residents of village Rasia, P.S.Pouakholi,District Kishanganj .... Appellants Versus The State Of Bihar .... Respondent (in Criminal Appeal(DB)No.697 of 2005) ======================================================== with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 722 of 2007 ------ Against the judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2007 and order of sentence dated 30.06.2007 passed by Sri Jhula Nand Jha, Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC 5, Kishanganj in Sessions Trial No. 536 of 2006/T.R. No. 133 of 2006. ------- Sagar Ganesh son of Madhu Singh resident of village Khekibari Rasia, P.S.Pawakhali, District Kishanganj .... Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent (in Criminal Appeal(SJ) No.722 of 2007) ======================================================== Appearance : For the appellants: M/s Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Diwakar Sinha and Kamal Kishore For the Respondent: Mr.Ashwini Kumar Sinha,Addl.P.P. ======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN -------- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) -------- Cr.Appeal Nos. 689 and 697 of 2005 (DB) have been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2005 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in Sessions Trial No.158 of 2005 whereby four appellants of two criminal appeals have been convicted under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and Cr.Appeal No. 722 of 2007 (SJ) has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2007 and order of sentence dated 30.06.2007 passed by Sri Jhula Nand Jha, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Kishanganj in Sessions Trial No. 536 of 2006/T.R.No. 133 of 2006 whereby appellant Sagar Ganesh has also been convicted under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Since both the impugned judgments were in connection with one occurrence, Cr.Appeal No. 722 of 2007(SJ) was tagged for hearing with the above two other criminal appeals which were pending before the Division Bench. 2. Sangeeta Devi, daughter of informant Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 3 Hari Nand Ganesh, was married to appellant Kampani Lal Ganesh in the year 2001 and dowry was paid at that time. Her initial married life remained ineventful and she enjoyed happy days but this period was too short approximately of one year. Thereafter the accused persons started raising demand of Rs.25,000/- and two bhars gold by way of additional dowry. Her failure to bring the additional dowry resulted in her torture by her in- laws including her husband. Out of their wedlock, one son was born and Sangeeta was carrying pregnancy of eight and half months. On 22.07.2004 the informant received information that his daughter has been killed by the accused persons namely, her husband Kampani Lal Ganesh, her father-in-law Madhu Singh, her mother-in-law Pankhoi Devi, elder brother of her husband Tisham Ganesh and younger brother of her husband Sagar Ganesh. Thereafter, the informant went to the matrimonial house of her daughter along with villagers and there he came to know about the entire occurrence. The police reached there and fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by Sri Vijay Prasad Roy, Officer-in-charge of Pawakhali Police Station at the door of Madhu Singh in village Khekibari Rasia wherein it has been stated that prior to the occurrence information had been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 4 received through his daughter that the accused persons were demanding Rs.25,000/- and gold for sparing her life. The informant requested the accused persons to keep his daughter with full care. About 20 days prior to the occurrence, Sangeeta was brought to informant’s house by her husband and as she was ill she was treated at the cost of her parents. At that time, her husband demanded additional dowry. She returned to her matrimonial house along with her husband on 16.07.2004. On 22.07.2004 the informant received information at 9.A.M. from the villagers that Sangeeta is no more. On getting this information, the informant rushed to the house of her daughter and found her dead body. Her dead body bore strangulation marks. On query, the informant came to know that Sangeeta has been strangulated at 5.00 P.M. on 21.07.2004 by Kampani Lal Ganesh, Tisham Ganesh, Sagar Ganesh, Madhu Singh and Pankhoi Devi and they have left the house leaving the dead body. The furdbeyan resulted in formal F.I.R. of Pawakhali (Thakurganj) P.S.Case No. 72 of 2004 under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegations were investigated into, the witnesses substantiated the allegations and the police after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet. Cognizance was taken. The case of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 5 accused Sagar Ganesh was sent to Juvenile Court, Purnea and case of other four accused namely, Kampani Lal Ganesh, Madhu Singh, Tisham Ganesh and Pankholi Devi was committed to the court of sessions where Charge under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed on 17.05.2005 and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded innocence and preferred to face trial. The case of another co-accused Sagar Ganesh after declaring him major was committed to the court of sessions on 28.03.2006 where charge under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed on 18.08.2006. He pleaded innocence and preferred to face the trial. So two separate trials proceeded. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005 in which four accused were facing trial. They are P.W.1 Shri Lal Ray, P.W.2 Gobardhan Ganesh, P.W.3 Harinandan Ganesh, informant of the case, P.W.4 Anant Lal Mandal, P.W.5 Sushil Kumar, P.W.6 Shobhawati Devi, P.W.7 Budhani Devi, P.W.8 Md.Matebul Rahman, P.W.9 Baijnath Mahto, P.W.10 Vijay Prasad Ray, the Investigating Officer of the case and P.W.11 Dr.Pranay Raj Sharan Sinha who held post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. 4. On behalf of defence in Sessions Trial Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 6 No. 158 of 2005, three witnesses were examined. They are : D.W.1 Pani Lal, D.W.2 Amarit Lal and D.W.3 Pramod Lal. 5. In Sessions Trial No. 536 of 2006 in which one co-accused Sagar Ganesh was facing trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined 10 witnesses. They are : P.W.1 Sobhawati Devi who is P.W.6 in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005, P.W.2 Harinandan Ganesh who is P.W.3 in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005, P.W.3 Anand Lal Mandal who is P.W.4 in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005, P.W.4 Shri Lal Roy who is P.W.1 in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005, P.W.5 Gobardhan Lal Ganesh who is P.W.2 in Sessions Trial No.158 of 2005, P.W.6 Sushil Kumar who is P.W.5 in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005, P.W.7 Pramod Lal who is examined as D.W.3 in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005, P.W.8 Matebul who is P.W.8 in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005, P.W.9 Pani Lal who was examined as D.W.1 in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005, P.W.10 Prabhu Lal who was not examined in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005. The Investigating Officer and the doctor who were examined in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005 have not been examined in Sessions Trial No. 536 of 2006. 6. The defence of the appellants in both the trial was that they have been implicated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 7 falsely and there was no evidence at all to link any of the accused with the offence. 7. After scanning the evidence of witnesses and other materials brought on record, both the trial courts though on different dates came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove to prove the charge against all the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and both the trial courts convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above. 8. This court is required to reappraise the evidences on records and to see as to whether the prosecution was able to prove the charge against the appellants beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. 9. Before coming to the evidence of eye witnesses, we would like to discuss the evidence of doctor P.W.11 (examined in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2005) who conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. This witness was posted as Medical Officer, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Kishanganj and on 22.07.2004 dead body of Sangeeta Devi was brought by Chawukidar 16/7 Chicaso Lal and 16/2 Mohal Lal (both not examined) and on 23.07.2004 at 10.00 A.M. post mortem was conducted on the dead body of Sangeeta Devi and doctor found the following Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 8 ante mortem injuries: (i) Swelling with echymosis of about 3”x2” size over right thigh- anteriolateral aspect-on dissection-subcutaneous tissue congested with reddish black discharge. (ii) A continuous 1” wide ligature mark around the neck-transversely placed over thyroid cartilage. On dissection of the ligature mark the underline subcutaneous tissue found congested. On further dissection of neck muscles trachea, lyrrings found highly congested. Mucous membrane of trachea contains clotted blood. Thyroid cartilage found broken. On dissection of abdomen uterus found gravid of about eight month size foetus. On opening the uterus, uterine cavity contains a dead female foetus of about eight month size. Mode of injury no.(i)- by hard and blunt object. Injury no.(ii) caused by ligature. According to opinion of the doctor, cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Post mortem report has been marked as Ext.3. In cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 9 examination, this witness has stated that such injury could not be found in self hanging and injury no.1 was ante mortem. He has also stated that in self hanging, saliva is oozed out and not blood. The doctor has denied that death was caused due to self hanging. 10. Informant Harinandan Ganesh (P.W.3) has stated that her daughter was married in 2001 with Kampani Lal Ganesh. Out of their wedlock a son was born and at the time of occurrence son was one and half years. The informant came to know from the villagers regarding the death of his daughter Sangeeta Devi on 22.07.2005 and thereafter he had gone to her house along with the Sri Lal Rai (P.W.1), Gobardhan Lal (P.W.2) and other villagers. He saw the dead body of his daughter lying at a verandah. This witness has further stated that there was sign of wound on her hand and legs and there was also sign of rope around neck and blood clots were present on her mouth and nostril. This witness has stated that in the beginning, her husband Kampany Lal Ganesh was taking proper care but later on both started quarreling in connection with demand of additional dowry. This was reported by Sangeeta Devi when she had come to her parents’ house and she advised her parents to give her in-laws Rs.25,000/- and two bhar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 10 gold because for that they used to torture her. This witness has further stated that due to non-fulfilment of demanded money and gold, she was done away by the accused persons. On receiving information, the police came and recorded his fardbeyan upon which this witness has put his signature. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that his daughter was brought at his house by her husband for the purpose of treatment and she remained there for about 20-25 days and during that period her husband also remained there. She was treated by Dr.D.Kumar, a doctor of Powakhali. The distance of Powakhali from the house of the informant is 10-15 K.M. and her daughter was being carried there by her husband through a cycle. This witness has stated that regarding torture no information was given to the police because Sangeeta was being kept properly by her in-laws (paragraph 5 of P.W.3). This witness further stated that the husband of Sangeeta was residing out of the village to earn livelihood and it was suggested that she has committed suicide because she was not getting company of her husband. 11. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. P.W.1 Shri Lal Roy knew through the villagers of the accused persons regarding death of Sangeeta Devi. He is a hearsay witness. P.W.2 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 11 Gobardhan Ganesh is uncle of Sangeeta Devi and he is another hearsay witness. P.W.4 Anant Lal Mandal has suspected that the accused persons might have killed Sangeeta Devi. He is not a witness of the occurrence. This witness, for the first time, has deposed in the court (P.W.4 in paragraph 5). P.W.5 Sushil Kumar has stated that Sangeeta was killed by her in-laws. P.W.6 Shobhabati Devi is mother of the deceased Sangeeta and she has stated that Sangeeta was killed by her in-laws and the case was lodged on the basis of information which she came to know through others. P.W.7 Buchani Devi and P.W.8 Md.Matebul Rahman have been declared hostile. P.W.9 Baijnath Mahto has come to know later on that Sangeeta has been killed by her in-laws. P.W.10 Vijay Prasad Roy received information at the police station regarding killing of a person and so after making S.D.entry he proceeded for the place of occurrence and after reaching there recorded fardbeyan of the informant Harinandan Ganesh (P.W.3) and inquest report was prepared. Regarding objective finding P.W.10 in paragraph 8 has stated that water had come out from the mouth and nose of dead body of Sangeeta and there was no blood stains anywhere. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, has submitted that Sangeeta Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 12 might have committed suicide because her husband was not living with her on account of the fact that he was earning his livelihood in the State of Kerala. This fact has appeared from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.10, whereby he has stated that there was no blood rather water had come out from the mouth and nose. The doctor P.W.11 in paragraph 3 of his evidence has stated that in self hanging saliva is oozed out and not blood. On this basis, it has been argued that the objective finding of the Investigating Officer is supported by the post mortem report because there was no blood and saliva was oozed out, so it cannot be said that it was a case of hanging and the objective finding of the doctor is corroborated by the Investigating Officer. 13. No doubt, some witnesses have stated that prior to death the victim was being subjected to torture in connection with demand of Rs.25,000/- and 2 bhar gold but that statement is a complete portrayed when the informant P.W.3 in his statement has stated that Sangeeta was kept properly by her in-laws. In this view of this evidence of P.W.3 it becomes clear that there are two versions of the occurrence. No doubt, the informant has somewhere stated that Sangeeta was being tortured by her in- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 13 laws in connection with demand of dowry but in the same vain he has stated that she was properly kept. Therefore, there is no evidence on which it can be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that Sangeeta was subjected to torture in connection with demand of dowry. Under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code there is definition of “dowry death”. Where 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 then such death shall be called “dowry death”. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is a substantive provision enacting a new offence and it is merely not a provision affecting a change in the procedure of trial in pre existing substance. The corresponding edition of the Indian Evidence Act has been made in Section 113B where the presumption of dowry death has been mentioned. If a question is raised as to whether pursuant to dowry death of a woman and when 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 has to presume that the death of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 14 such person be called dowry death. The words “soon before her death” has been dealt with in various decisions wherein it has be held that at least the prosecution is required to bring the evidence to show that the victim was being subjected to torture in connection with demand of dowry “soon before her death”. If such evidence is brought on the record, then the onus shifts otherwise and the defence has to prove its case. Therefore, the condition precedents which has been brought by amendments are that the prosecution is mandated to prove that the torture which led to death was “soon before her death”. 14. In the present case, no evidence has been brought on record regarding torture “soon before her death” rather the informant has contradicted himself in many ways. At one place he has categorically stated that his daughter was kept properly by her in-laws. This statement of a witness who is father of the deceased creates a big hole in the prosecution version and it can safely be said that the prosecution in the present case has virtually failed to establish that “soon before her death” Sangeeta was being tortured in connection with demand of dowry. Considering this, it will be unsafe to maintain the order of conviction of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.689 of 2005 dt.22-09-2011 15 appellants in this case. 15. Accordingly, after analyzing the entire evidence on record and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Hence they deserve to be acquitted. 16. In the result, all the above three appeals are allowed and both judgments of conviction and orders of sentence are set aside. The appellants of all the above three appeals are acquitted of the charge. Appellants Madhu Singh, Tisham Ganesh, Pankhoi Devi (in Cr.Appeal (DB) Nos. 697 of 2005) and Sagar Ganesh (in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 722 of 2007) are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appellant Kampani Lal Ganesh (in Cr.Appeal (DB) No.689 of 2005), who is in custody, is ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J.) ( Vikash Jain, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 22nd September,2011 Tahir/-(NAFR)