Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.152 of 2007 Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.12.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.135 of 2005/182 of 2006. SANJAY SINGH.... .... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR.... .... RESPONDENT With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 102 of 2007 1. AJAY SINGH & 2. JAGAT MAYA DEVI.... .... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR.... .... RESPONDENT For the Appellants: S/Sri Jagdish Prasad No.1 Virendra Kumar & Sri A.K.Verma, Advocates. (In both the Appeals) For the Respondent : Sri S.N.Prasad, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA Dharnidhar Jha,J The two appeals are directed against judgment dated 11.12.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No.I, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.135 of 2005/182 of 2006. By the impugned judgment the appellants were convicted of offences under Section 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after being heard on sentence on the same day each of the appellants was 2 directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years as also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, else to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months for his individual conviction under Section 304B IPC. Each of the appellants was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each as also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, else to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months their for conviction under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. It appears that a petition of complaint(Ext-2)was filed by P.W.12 Satish Kumar Singh on 01.05.2003 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur and a copy of the complaint petition was transmitted to the Officer-in- Charge of Raghopur police station and on that basis the FIR of Raghopur P.S.Case No.68 of 2003 under various Sections of the IPC was drawn up. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, it was found that the place of occurrence was located within Tariani police station in the district of Sheohar and as such Tariani P.S.Case No.07 of 2004 was registered on 25.01.2004. The case was investigated into and, lastly, it resulted in submission of the chargesheet which ended into the 3 impugned judgment. 3. It was stated in the complaint petition that Rinku Kumari, the sister of P.W.12 was married in the month of Baisakh 1989 to appellant Sanjay Singh. Cash of Rs.51,000/- along with some ornaments both of golden and silver as also some clothes were given to the bride and groom both at the time of the marriage whereafter the bride accompanied her husband up to her matrimonial house. It is stated that the deceased Rinku Kumari led a peaceful life for three continuous years and during that course the complainant used to visit the deceased off and on and he came to learn from the deceased that the appellants and other accused were asking her to bring a motorcycle from her mother. 4. The complainant stated that his parents were poor fellows and were not quite capable of fulfilling the demand for the motorcycle and as such the deceased was mentally and physically tortured by the accused persons. The deceased related her pathetic story to the complainant and his family members as a result of which they used to implore the accused persons to get the Rukhsadi function completed but the accused persons were demanding a motorcycle, else were not ready to go through the ceremony. It is stated by the complainant that due to 4 the above reasons, the deceased was turned out of her matrimonial house after being deprived of her belongings and by being abandoned at a particular place at Bankaghat near the Pontoon bridge wherefrom she came to her mother’s house and narrated her tale of woes. The complainant stated that on 15.03.2003 his relatives, like, Suresh Singh(not examined), Jaleshwar Singh(not examined), Harikishore Singh(not examined), Manjeet Singh and Parmeshwar Singh(not examined)went to the house of the appellants and again requested him for Rukhshadi of the deceased as he was not in a position to fulfill the demand for the motorcycle, during which deliberations the accused persons are said to have assured the informant that the lady would not further be tortured and assured the complainant that they would not repeat the same any further and were ready to bring back the lady back to her matrimonial house and accordingly, the lady was brought to the house of the appellants. 5. It is stated that he received a telephonic message on 23.06.2003 that his sister had been killed by the accused persons on account of not getting the motorcycle and the occurrence had already taken place on 18.06.2003 and the dead body had been cremated. The complainant stated that having received 5 the information he came again to the village of the appellants and learnt from the villagers about the incident and thereafter filed the complaint petition. Thus, though the occurrence was dated 18.06.2003, the complaint petition was filed on 01.07.2003 on the basis of which initially the police had instituted Raghopur police case no.68 of 2003 and subsequently the jurisdiction was changed to Tariani police station. 6. During the trial the appellants took a plea that the deceased had died of diarrhoea and formal information was given to the informant and his family members about the death of his sister and the dead body was cremated. It was also suggested that for any ulterior motive the complainant filed a belated complaint in a wrong jurisdiction, else there was no reason as to why he could not have filed the complaint petition in the proper jurisdiction. It was contended that the main motto of the complainant was simply to harass the appellants by foisting a false case against them. 7. During the course of the trial, 17 witnesses were produced by the prosecution, out of whom P.Ws.4 Shatrughan Singh, P.W.6 Madan Singh and P.W.7 Chhathia Devi were declared hostile as they stated that they had not made any statement before 6 the police as they did not know anything about the occurrence. Out of the remaining witnesses P.W.3 Surendra Kumar Singh was a witness of formal character stating to being acquainted with the writings of a particular police officer who had drawn up the FIR of the case(Ext-1). The remaining witnesses up to P.W.8 stated that no occurrence as alleged had taken place and in fact the lady had died of diarrhoea and as soon as the her ailment was detected by the appellants, they got her treated by a doctor but she could not survive. The support to the allegations appears coming from P.W.9 Shanti Devi, the mother of the deceased, P.W.10 Agamdeo Singh, the Bahnoi of the deceased, P.W.11 Sanjay Kumar Singh has simply stated to a single fact that on 23.06.2003 while he was sitting at his telephone booth he received a call from some one requesting him to immediately bring P.W.12 Satish Kumar Singh on line as an emergent message was to be delivered to him and accordingly, he requested P.W.12 to come to his booth. However, while I was considering the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, I found that P.W.10 has stated in paragraph-4 that he has had never given any statement before the police nor the police had questioned him during the investigation. Similar is the statement of P.W.11 as well. As a result of the above statements 7 of P.Ws.10 and 11 their evidence is of no use and is inadmissible. 8. So far as the evidence of P.W.9 Shanti Devi is concerned, she is mother of the deceased and P.W.12 has stated that after her marriage when the deceased was living in her matrimonial house, she sent informations about being tortured and illtreated by the appellants for not bringing a motorcycle from her mother and, lastly, her daughter was killed by the accused persons and her dead body was cremated. It was stated by P.W.9 that no information about the death of the deceased was ever given to her and the information about the death of the deceased reached her through other persons whereafter she sent P.Ws.10 and 11 to the house of the accused persons and they came back to state that the information was true and that Rinku Kumari had been murdered by her family members. During cross-examination of the witness P.W.9 has stated that the demand for the motorcycle was made by the accused persons three years after the marriage but no information was given to the police in respect of that demand. P.W.12 used to visit the deceased at her matrimonial house. It appears from the cross-examination paragraph-4 of P.W.9 that a daughter was also born to the deceased and she was residing with the appellants after the occurrence. 8 9. P.W.12 is the informant of the case who had initially filed the complaint petition. He has stated in his evidence that after marriage Rinku Kumari remained in her Sasural for three years and during that course she used to visit her and the deceased used to tell him that the accused persons were demanding a motorcycle and for that they were badly ill-treating her. He further stated that after three years of the marriage, the accused persons abandoned her near the pontoon bridge on Bankaghat from where she came to his house and stated the whole incident to him. The accused persons came to his house and admitted perpetrating torturing and illtreatment upon the deceased and expressed regret for it and placed their apology for the same, and pleaded for Bidai of the deceased to their house and, accordingly, on 16.03.2003 the deceased was sent off to her matrimonial house. 10. This part of the story that the accused persons came to the house of the complainant and admitted perpetrating the acts of torture upon the deceased was never stated in the complaint petition. Thus, what appears is that the initial story that the complainant had gone with some relatives to the house of the accused persons for pleading with them to take the lady back into their family fold has been given a 9 go by and a new story has been propounded in that place. 11. It further appears from the evidence of P.W.12 that on 18.06.2003, the lady had gone back to her matrimonial house and was killed and her dead body was cremated. He again claims going to the house of the appellants and states that the accused persons admitted commission of the offence and asked him to go away as the same consequences may befall upon him. This story again appears a new improvement upon the written version which was contained in the petition of complaint and most of the version as is narrated by P.W.12 was never supported by any witness. The witness who was supporting some facts except these important facts, like P.W.10 Agamdeo Singh, had admitted that he had never been questioned or examined by the police during the course of investigation. Initial statement in the complaint petition was that he went to the village of the appellants and learnt from the villagers as to how Rinku Kumari had been killed. But in order to giving some more authenticity to the story P.W.12 was telling the court, appears making some vital improvements in his story. 12. This is the evidence which the prosecution had adduced. Some other witnesses like 10 P.Ws.13, 14 and 15 were not witnesses on the later part of the incident as regards the killing of the deceased. However, the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution, like, P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.8 have stated that the deceased had a bout of diarrhoea and she was taken to a doctor who treated her but unfortunately she could not survive and died, whereafter information about her death was given to the prosecution party. 13. On consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, what appears is that the evidence of P.W.12 or P.W.9 could not be accepted inasmuch as the P.W.12 appears making vital improvements upon his statements which he had made in Ext-2, the petition of complaint. He attempted to sound more authentic so he was putting in some vital statements which were never appearing in the petition of complaint and those statements dents his credibility as a trustworthy witness. The other probability which appears from the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5 or 8 is that the deceased might have died of diarrhea. If that is the possibility which also appears from the prosecution witnesses then the case was not proved. 14. In that view, the two appeals are allowed. The appellants are acquitted by setting 11 aside the judgment of conviction and the sentences passed upon each of them. Appellant Sanjay Singh(Cr.Appeal No.152 of 2007)is in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The two appellants, namely, Ajay Singh and Jagat Maya Devi(Cr.Appeal No.102 of 2007)are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, Dated, the 11th day of August, 2011, Brajesh Kumar/NAFR ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)