IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31406 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR GHOSHAL @ AJAY GHOSHAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 26.9.2008 Heard. The case was initially registered under Section 304B IPC but subsequently, the police has submitted chargesheet under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The deceased Bani Ghoshal was married to the son of the petitioner named Raj Kumar Bhushan and undisputedly was residing in his house in Bhagalpur. The informant happens to be the full brother of the deceased and he appears learning that his sister had died under suspicious circumstances. As such, he came to Bhagalpur from Bettiah and saw the dead body and could infer that his sister had been killed by being assaulted as there were injuries apparently present on the dead body. The deceased had been married to the son of the petitioner, namely, Raj Kumar only on 3.2.2007 and the occurrence occurred in May, - 2 - 2007. It is alleged that presents, in all forms, of the value of Rs.12,00,000/- had been given to her in-laws, but they were not satisfied with that and they were demanding another amount of Rs.60,000/- for furnishing their house. The informant had expressed his inability in meeting the demand and as such his sister had been confined in the house and was not even allowed to meet the informant who had gone to see her in May, 2007 The defence is that the mother-in-law, namely, Munmun Ghoshal only was present in the house and she immediately informed the police which rushed to the scene of occurrence and broke the door open and then brought out the dead body of Bani Ghoshal which was found hanging from the roof by a rope. It was further contended that she had left a suicide note not holding anyone responsible for causing her death. It was further contended that considering all these circumstances the mother-in-law and two of the - 3 - sisters-in-law have been admitted to bail by this Court. The police, has of course, noted in the very initial paragraphs of the case diary that on arrival at the P.O. they found that the door of the room in which the dead body was found, was not opening up. As such, an external force was used and it could be opened. But there is no record in that paragraph that any external latches which could have been put on were found broken on account of submission of that force, rather what the I.O. has recorded is that the part of latch was found under the bed and one part of it near the door. As regards the defence of suicide by the lady, on account of hanging herself to death; that is completely ruled out, if one considers the postmortem examination report. There were two ligature marks described by doctors holding the postmortem report. There was one ligature mark described in the postmortem report measuring 1 - 4 - C.M. to 2.5 c.m. on front of neck which was on right side of neck and was found going up- words and back-words. The ligature mark was absent on left side of neck and back of neck. Important part of the report is that on dissection of the underlying tissue under the above noted ligature mark, the doctor found no brusing or infiltration of blood and reported that on account of above features the mark was postmortem. Then what appears recorded by the doctor in the whole of the postmortem report is finding of three injuries described at sls.no.1, 2 and 3 and the one described at sl.no.2 appears the real cause of death. It was an injury on account of human efforts of throttling the deceased to death. The injuries described as injuries no.1 and 2 in my opinion could be caused while the deceased could be resisting the attempt to strangulate her by force. These are some of the circumstances which rule out the theories of commission of suicide and as such I do not find much merit - 5 - in the argument which was so forcibly made and which appears considered by a Bench of this Court while granting bail to Smt. Munmun Ghoshal in Cr.Misc.No.385 of 2008 that the lady had left a suicidal note and as such had committed suicide. The suicide note appear mysterious. The Court could not answer it, trial court might be doing it after hearing the evidence as to what could be the reasons and circumstances for creation of those documents or evidences. At this stage the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner nose on his feet to submit that after all what could be the allegations against the petitioner so as to indicting him under a charge under Section 302 IPC. I could simply say that by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act it appears a case of special knowledge of the accused and the evidence to be adduced in trial could be given and explained to them or they could get it when they are called to - 6 - explain the circumstances against them arising out of the evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The lady was daughter-in-law of the petitioner. She was in his house. She was suffocated to death and the accused persons could be knowing the best as to how she was asphyxiated to death and by whom. As things stand presently, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )