IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21093 of 2009 BACHIYA DEVI, wife of Sri Banbari Sah, resident of village Chhuchhunariya, P.S. Jhajha and District Jamui Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 13.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner, mother-in-law, faces prosecution for offence u/s 304B/34 I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire case, as narrated by the father of the victim lady, the daughter- in-law of the petitioner, is cooked up, inasmuch as the lady had died a natural death and that too after a prolonged treatment which was given to her at Jhajha where she was under medical check up of Dr. Ajay Kumar and Dr. Mrs. Naina Kumari. In this context counsel relies on a prescription dated 22.4.2008 to substantiate that the deceased was given all sort of medical care and therefore, the allegation u/s 304B I.P.C. either against the petitioner or other family members on the face of record cannot be made out. Counsel for the petitioner has also 2 submitted that there is nothing to show that there was any demand of dowry prior to the death of the deceased and in fact when the prosecution had also filed no petition before institution of the F.I.R. such at random allegations have to be disbelieved in view of false accusation made in the F.I.R. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner, the mother-in-law, is living in the same house with son and husband in which the dead body of the deceased was recovered by the police, with the following three ante mortem injuries: i) Swelling and echymosis 2”x1” behind right ear. ii) Swelling 1.1/2” on left side chest laterally. iii) Echymosis 1.1/2” infront of right elbow, caused by hard and blunt substance by itself would be reflective of the fact that she had not died a natural death, rather the opinion of the doctor was very clear that she had died on account of assault. A question would arise when and how these injuries by way of assault were caused on the person of the deceased? The obvious 3 answer will be in the house she was residing last. It was on record by way of allegation of the informant that initially the informant father on coming to know of the illness of the deceased had taken her to his house for treatment but the husband, a co- accused did not allow her to live over there and had brought her back to Sasural. This part of the link of the prosecution story combined with the earlier statement of the informant that her daughter used to always complain about the demand of dowry as also continuing threat on her life for its fulfillment would leave nothing for this Court to speculate regarding unnatural death of the deceased, which in the opinion of the Doctor in his postmortem report was caused on account of assault on her person. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since no petition was filed by the prosecution by way of information as with regard to demand of dowry by the informant that by itself should be sufficient to disbelieve the entire prosecution case is only to be again noted for its being rejected. In a place like 4 India the people living below poverty line, their taking recourse to legal procedure is always by way of last resort. Infact no relative of the unfortunate lady would like to invite further wrath for her by taking the matter to the police and court. What would really make the case of the petitioner worse is that even the injuries, which were found on the person of the deceased in course of postmortem report, were in the line of the injuries noted by the Police Officer in the inquest report who had arrived at the place of occurrence soon after recording of the Fardbeyan, wherein he too had found several marks of assault on the person of the deceased, which would give sufficient dent to the defence plea of the petitioner that she had died a natural death on account of her abortion and its consequential side effect. In this context the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was only one injury by way of swelling on the mouth of the deceased is also apparently incorrect because that both the doctor and the Police Officer in their respective reports had 5 noted the injuries also on the other part of the body. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the informant in his F.I.R. had only complained about swelling in the mouth, it must be inferred that that the report of the doctor and the report of the Investigating Officer by way of postmortem report and the inquest report are false or that the prosecution has not come with clean hand can also not be accepted primarily in view of the objective findings recorded both in inquest report and postmortem report and therefore the thunder stricken father whose daughter had been killed in a brutal manner on coming to know of the death of his father, having seen her at the spot wrapped in cloth allover her person had able to notice one injury on her uncovered face that by itself cannot believe the presence of other injuries as neither he was in a mental frame nor in a position to discover all her injuries and infact it was not even expected of him to note to each and every minute detail of injury on her person, a job which had to be done by the experts or 6 the police officer. Such injuries therefore as found in inquest report and postmortem report cannot be lightly brushed aside on account of alleged discrepancy in the version of the informant. That being so, this Court would find no case for grant of bail to the petitioner, Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/