CRIMINAL APPEAL No.429 OF 1988 ---------- Against the judgment of conviction dated 09.08.1988 and order of Sentence dated 10.08.1988 passed by Sri Rajendra Prasad Choudhary, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 1986/128 of 1987. ---------- 1. Sheo Chandra Lal Arya alias Sharma Jee, Son of Munnalal Arya. 2. Dharm Prakash Arya alias Dharam Prakash Lal alias Laddo Lal, son of Sheo Chandra Lal Arya. 3. Soni Devi, wife of Sheo Chandra Lal Arya. All residents of Mohalla Line Bazar, Purnia, Police Station- Khazanchi Hat, District- Purnia..............................................................Appellants. -Versus- The State of Bihar................................................................Respondent. ---------- For the Appellants: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha-1, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, Advocate. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ---------- S. K. Sharma & D.K.Singh,JJ. The three appellants, being the father- in-law, husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 09.08.1988 and order of sentence dated 10.08.1988 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia, in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 1986/128 of 1987, whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code which led to their convictions and they were sentenced to rigorous 2 imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written statement(Ext.1) of P.W.3, the father of the deceased, addressed to the Officer-in- Charge of Khazanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 148 of 1982 to the effect that the informant’s younger daughter Veena Devi(deceased) was married to Dharm Prakash Arya @ Dharam Prakash Lal @ Laddo Lal(appellant no. 2) in April 1981 and thereafter in November, 1981 the victim went to the in-laws’ house, for the second time. It is alleged that in February, 1982 when the informant went to take his daughter (deceased), then the father-in-law (appellant no.1) demanded the remaining amount of dowry and put a pre-condition for the payment of Rs. 5,000/- for sending the victim to her parents house and threatened for dire consequences in case of non-payment. Thereafter the informant asked for three months time to make the payment. In the meantime, one letter of his daughter (deceased) was received by the informant on 10.03.1982 and contents of the letter suggested that the deceased was in a very miserable condition. Then the informant 3 sent his son Dilip Kumar( P.W.1) and his Sardhu’s son, namely, Arun Kumar (P.W.2) for bringing back the deceased to her parents house, but when P. Ws. 1 and 2 reached on 04.05.1982 at 6.00 A.M., then the father-in-law (appellant no.1) conveyed that their sister Veena Devi has committed suicide by hanging herself. Then, P. Ws. 1 and 2, returned on 05.05.1982 and conveyed about the aforesaid occurrence to the informant. On 06.05.1982, the informant went to victim’s in-laws’ house and from the prevailing situation and from whatever he heard from tea stall vendors, the informant was convinced that his daughter did not commit suicide, rather she was killed. It is also alleged that few persons heard screaming sound in the night of 29.04.1982. On the basis of the aforesaid written statement, it was suspected that the father, mother and the husband committed the murder of the informant’s daughter, which consequently led to registration of Khazanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 148 of 1982 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D. P. Act, on 10.05.1982 itself. 4 3. From the impugned judgment, it appears that a U.D. Case No. 03 of 1982 was registered on the statement of father-in-law(appellant no.1), prior to the registration of the F.I.R. and in the U.D. Case, the Investigating Officer opined that no definite opinion could be formed, with regard to cause of death. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer was entrusted with the investigation of the present F.I.R. alongwith U.D. case. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 04.05.1982. 4. After commitment, the charges were framed on 13.11.1988 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against all the three accused persons. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined 12 witnesses, of which Dilip Kumar (P.W.1) is the brother of the deceased. This witness has simply deposed that he went to the in-laws house of the victim on 04.05.1982, where he was conveyed by the father-in-law (appellant no.1) of the victim, that the victim had committed suicide. Thereafter, he went to a nearby tea stall 5 vendor, where a lady conveyed to this witness that his sister has been killed, but this witness has neither enquired about the lady’s name, nor it appears that the alleged lady has been examined by the police, nor she has been cited as witness in this case. Moreover, this witness in paragraph no.3 has specifically stated that he did not state anything to the police except whatever was conveyed to him by the said lady. This witness has not said anything about demand of dowry being made by the accused persons, hence his evidence is only to the effect that he raised some suspicion against the accused persons without any substantial basis. P.W. 2, is the cousin brother of the P.W.1 and he has deposed in the similar manner as has been deposed by P.W.1. In paragraph no. 6, this witness has subsequently stated that no information was given to the police after receiving the information about the suicidal death of his sister, as was conveyed by the father-in-law of the victim. In paragraph no. 9, this witness has stated that his statement was recorded by the 6 police, 5-6 days after his return from Purnia. This witness has also not said anything about demand of dowry or writing of letter by the deceased to the informant. Hence, this witness, has also raised only suspicion with regard to the death of the victim. P.W.3 is the informant and father of the deceased, who in paragraph no.1 of his deposition has specifically stated that at the time of the marriage, there was no demand of dowry. In paragraph no. 6, this witness has stated about letter of the victim received on 10.05.1982, which has not been brought on record, but from that letter the informant gathered that the victim was not in a happy state of mind and in paragraph no. 16, it has been admitted by this witness that except one letter, no other letter was written by the victim to the informant. In paragraph no.18 of his evidence, this witness has stated that so far as the demand of Rs. 5,000/- was concerned, he did not convey about this to any of his relatives or even to his wife and children. Paragraph no. 22 of the evidence of P.W. 7 3, suggests that, two letters written by this witness to the father-in-law of the victim have been marked as Exts. A/1 and A/2, but the said letters written by P.W.3, does not bear any reference about any torture or demand of dowry being made by the accused persons. A suggestion was also given to this witness in paragraph no. 30 that the victim was suffering from hysteria and that there was tendency in the family for committing suicide, as the other sister of the victim, had also attempted to commit suicide on three occasions. The evidence of P.W.3 suggests that he lodged the case on mere suspicion and he has failed to prove the case of demand of dowry by his own conduct, by not bringing on record the letter written by the victim to him and by not conveying about the demand to any one, including his wife and the children. P.Ws.4 and 5, are the co-villagers of the accused and they have supported the defence version, hence they have been declared hostile. P.W.6 is the formal witness who has proved the inquest report (Ext. 2). P.W.7 is also a formal witness who has 8 proved the post mortem report (Ext.3). P.W.8 is Asha Devi. She is the sister-in- law (Gotani) of the victim. This witness has deposed more about her strained relationship with her husband and in-laws and she has least deposed about the present occurrence. The relevance of the evidence of this witness become futile, in view of her statement in paragraph no. 4 that the victim was married after this witness deserted her husband and the in-laws. The evidence of this witness suggests that she was admittedly not present in the in- laws’ house when the victim died or after the death of the victim. P.W.9, is the father of P.W.8. This witness has also deposed more about the strained relationship of his daughter with her husband, who is none else than the own brother of the victim’s husband and the utility of the evidence of this witness also becomes futile in view of his evidence in paragraph no.3, that he came to know about the death of the victim through police. P.W.10, Ravi Nandan Prasad, the I.O., in paragraph no.1 admits that the U.D. Case No. 03 9 of 1982 was registered and subsequently the police case was also entrusted to him. P.W.10, in paragraph no. 12, has stated that P.W.4 conveyed about some screaming voice coming out from the house of the accused persons on the alleged date of the occurrence, but in our view, this part of evidence has no relevance, since P.W. 4 has been declared hostile. Further, in paragraph no.16 this witness has denied that P.W. 9 ever conveyed to him about any demand of dowry having been made by the in- laws of the victim. P.W. 11 is the another Investigating Officer, who transmitted the dead body for the post mortem and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses in the U.D. case. P.W. 12, Dr. Ramdeo Rai is the doctor who conducted the post mortem. According to the evidence of the doctor no sign of strangulation or hanging or any ligature mark on the neck was found on the dead body, and the neck was also not lengthened and there was only one abrasion like mark of 1½” X 1½” size on the lower border of the Mandible and the another abrasion like mark was also found of 1½” X 1½” size on the 10 lower border of Mandible on the left side but no contusion was found inside. 6. Paragraph no.2 of the evidence of P.W. 12, suggests that no definite cause of death could be ascertained. Though Viscera was preserved, but no examination report of the Viscera has been brought on record. Hence, the evidence of the doctor clearly suggests that the victim was not assaulted and also that the kind of abrasion like marks found on the neck could be caused even due to scratching. 7. From scanning of the evidence, it is apparent that so far as allegation of demand of 5,000/-rupees is concerned, it has only been supported by P.W.3, the informant, but as per his own evidence in paragraph no.1, no demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage and for the first time Rs. 5,000/- was demanded in February, 1982, whereas the alleged marriage was performed in April, 1981. Moreover, the alleged demand of Rs. 5,000/- was admittedly not conveyed by P.W.3, either to his wife or to any other family member, as admitted by this witness in paragraph no.8 of his evidence. This witness has further clearly deposed that he did 11 not state, about any demand having been made by the in-laws, before the police. Hence, apart from P.W.3, no other witness talks about any demand of dowry and hence, the prosecution has failed to prove any allegation with regard to the demand of dowry, though no charge was framed to that effect. 8. So far as the allegation of torture is concerned, as per the evidence of P.W.3, he gathered the impression of torture being inflicted upon the victim through the letter which was received by him on 10.08.1982, but the said letter has not been brought on record and above all, P.W. 3, in paragraph no. 15, has clearly admitted that he has not said anything about the torture and the conduct of the in- laws to the police, which suggests that the allegation of torture or demand was just suggested in the fardbeyan but it was not supported either during investigation or during trial. 9. So far as the cause of death is concerned, P. Ws. 1 to 3 have only raised a suspicion with regard to death by killing, on the basis of information given by a lady at the 12 tea stall, but neither the name of the lady has been disclosed by P. Ws. 1 to 3 nor she has come to depose before the police or during the trial. 10. The evidence of the doctor suggests that no such injury, which could have caused the death of the victim, has been found during the post mortem and two abrasion like marginal scratches found on the neck of the victim can not be taken as sufficient medical evidence to suggest strangulation or hanging. Though the U.D. case was lodged at the behest of appellant no.1, suggesting that the victim committed suicide by hanging herself but the statement of the appellant no. 1 under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. suggests that they have deserted their stand with regard to lodging of the U.D. Case. 11. Admittedly, death has taken place but there is nothing on record to suggest that the victim was killed by these appellants. Hence, on the basis of the evidence on record the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against these appellants and on the basis of available evidences, the judgment and order of conviction can not be sustained, hence the 13 judgment of conviction dated 09.08.1988 and order of sentence dated 10.08.1988 passed in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 1986/128 of 1987 are set-aside. 12. The appellants are directed to be discharged of their respective liabilities of bail bonds. 13. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Patna High Court Dated the 20th August, 2010. U.K./N.A.F.R. (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J) ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)