The post-mortem report shows that the petitioners may not be responsible for the death as it was due to asphyxia by hanging: High Court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.377020 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 330 Year 2020 Thana SIWAN MUFFASIL District Siwan Ramnath Sah aged about 55 yearsS o Late Bachan Sah 2. Gandhari Devi aged about 50 yearsW o Ramnath Sah Tuntun Sah aged about 35 yearsS o Ramnath Sah 4. Niraj Kumari @ Miji Kumari aged about 18 yearsD o Ramnath Sah All R o Village Jhunapur Dakshin Tola P.S. Mahadeva O.P. District The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the State For the Petitioner s Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan Advocate Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal APP Mr. Harendra Prasad Advocate For the Informant CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17 09 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan learned counsel for the petitioners Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Harendra Prasad learned counsel for the informant 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Siwan MuffasilPS Case No. 3320 dated 16.07.2020 instituted under Sections 304(B) 120(B) 34 of the Indian Penal Code Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.17 09 2021 4. The allegation against the petitioners who are father in law mother in law elder brother of the husband and sister respectively of the husband of the deceased is of killing her due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are totally false as never during three years of marriage there was any complaint made before any authority relating to any demand or maltreatment much less assault. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased had committed suicide and thus in the post mortem the doctor has only found mark of rope around the neck and has opined that the death was on account of “asphyxia due to hanging and looks like suicidal” as has been recorded in the order of the learned In charge 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Siwan dated 21.09.2020 in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 14920 by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners had been rejected. Learned counsel submitted that there being no other mark found on the body fortifies the argument that it is a case of suicide. Learned counsel submitted that the cause of suicide is also not known to the petitioners as it was a personal issue between the deceased and her husband who is already in custody. Learned counsel submitted that the informant has also Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.17 09 2021 compromised the matter and an affidavit to this effect has been filed before the Court below in which it has been stated that there was neither any demand earlier for dowry nor was she killed by the accused. It was submitted that the petitioners also do not have any other criminal antecedent. 6. Learned APP submitted that there is allegation of demand of dowry and also of killing of the deceased by the 7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that it was a case of murder and the petitioners also had a role However on a specific query of the Court as to how he had been instructed by the informant to oppose the present application in the face of him having filed compromise before the Court below learned counsel submitted that he had not been instructed by the informant in this regard 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds that there are indications to the effect that the petitioners who are in laws of the deceased may not be responsible for such death more so in view of the finding in the post mortem where it has been opined that the death was due to asphyxia by hanging and it appeared to be a case of suicide and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.17 09 2021 also that an affidavit by the informant has been filed before the Court below compromising the mater and stating that the petitioners have not committed any offence as also the petitioners not having any other criminal antecedent the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre arrest bail 9. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 25 000 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Siwan in Siwan MuffasilPS Case No. 3320 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds. 10. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioners to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377020 dt.17 09 2021 11. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: The petitioners apprehended arrest under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, “Dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by any bodily injury within seven years of her marriage by her husband or any relative of her husband”, Section 120(B), “Punishment of criminal conspiracy”, Section 34 IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” The petition is in connection with Siwan Muffasil (Mahadeva OP) [PS Case No. 330 of 2020] dated 16.07.2020. In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 17th of September  2021 in the case of Ramnath Sah and others Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No.37701 of 2020] Mr Abdul Mannan Khan represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Ms Veena Kumari Jaiswal represented the State of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr Harendra Prasad,  represented as the advocate for the informant, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, elder brother of the husband and sister, respectively, of the husband of the deceased were accused of murdering the deceased (daughter-in-law) as she did not meet their dowry demand. The counsel representing the petitioner held that the allegations made in the FIR are falsely implicated and when the couple were married for three years there was no sign of any complaint before any authority concerning dowry demand or maltreatment and assault. The counsel further stated that the deceased died due to committing suicide and according to the post-mortem report the doctor have discovered a mark of rope around her neck and mentioned that the account of death was asphyxia due to hanging and looks like suicidal. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan dated 21.09.2020 in Anticipatory Bail Petition [No. 1490 of 2020], rejected anticipatory bail for the petitioners. The counsel held that since there is no other mark on the body the petitioner is not responsible for the same as it was her issue, the husband of the deceased is already in custody. The petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. The counsel submitted an affidavit where the informant has compromised the matter and stated that there was neither any demand earlier for dowry nor was, she killed by the petitioners. The additional public prosecutor held that the allegations are precise and the petitioners must be held accountable for demanding dowry and killing the deceased. The counsel representing the informant held that this case was nothing but murder and the petitioners were party to the same. The counsel held that he had not been instructed by the informant regarding compromise to this case before the court. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court because of the finding in the post-mortem where it has been stated that the death was due to asphyxia by hanging and it appeared to be a case of suicide and also that an affidavit by the informant has been filed before the Court concerning compromising the mater and stating that the petitioners have not committed any offence as also the petitioners not having any other criminal antecedent, therefore the petitioners, who are in-laws of the deceased, are not responsible for such death, and the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The Honourable Court concluded that “the petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Siwan Muffasil [PS Case No. 330 of 2020], subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.1973 (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, and (ii) that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of their bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”