Report of Forensic Science Laboratory proves whether the accused is guilty of dowry death: High Court of Punjab and Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.365320 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 116 Year 2019 Thana NAYAGAON District Saran Sandeep Kumar aged approx 30 years Male son of Sri Roopjitan Sah Roopjitan Prasad resident of Village Bariyarchak P.S. Nayagaon District ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Advocate Mr. Anant Kumar No. 1 APP Date : 23 09 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anant Kumar No. 1 learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Nayagaon PS Case No. 1119 dated 19.08.2019 instituted under Sections 304 B and 201 34 of the Indian Penal Code 4. The allegation against the petitioner who is the husband of the daughter of the informant is that he had killed his wife and had also done away with evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during investigation it has come that the daughter of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365320 dt.23 09 2021 informant had run away as letter to this effect has been found by the police. It was submitted that the dead body has not been recovered. He submitted that the petitioner having clean antecedent is a simple man working in Patna whereas the incident is said to have taken place in the district of Saran 6. On the aforesaid stand of learned counsel for the petitioner the Court had asked learned APP to obtain the up to date legible photo copy of the entire case diary of Nayagaon PS Case No. 1119 from the Superintendent of Police Saran and later a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to whether the letter found to have been written by the wife of the petitioner was actually in her handwriting. Today learned APP has forwarded the report of the Superintendent of Police Saran including the opinion of the police laboratory CID Bihar with regard to handwriting of the letter recovered stating that the wife of the petitioner had herself gone away. The report stated that it was in the same handwriting as that of the other such writings of the wife of the petitioner which have been forwarded for comparison i.e. both the disputed and specimen writings have been found to be of one and the same person. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the informant has also filed compromise petition Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365320 dt.23 09 2021 stating that the case has been filed due to misconception and that even the witnesses during police investigation have stated that the wife of the petitioner herself had gone away. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in view of what has come during investigation as also the comparison of the letter said to have been written by the victim that she herself was leaving the house and the writing having been found to be of her after comparison of the specimen writings the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre arrest 8. Accordingly in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs 25 000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI Chapra Saran in Nayagaon PS Case No. 1119 subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and furtherthat the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and police prosecution. Failure to co operate shall lead to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.365320 dt.23 09 2021 cancellation of his bail bonds. 9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioner to the notice of the Court concerned which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the 10. The petition stands disposed of in the (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J J. Alam 

Summary: The petitioner 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 and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or har­assment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, Section 201 IPC, “Causing disappearance of evidence of the offence, or giving false information to screen offender”, Section 34 IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”. The petition is in connection with Nayagaon PS Case No. 116 of 2019 dated 19.08.2019. In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 23rd of September 2021 in the case of Sandeep Kumar Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No.36535 of 2020] Mr Ajay Kumar Thakur represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Mr Anant Kumar represented the State of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The case relates to the facts, wherein the petitioner who is the husband of the deceased is accused of killing his wife (daughter of the informant) and was also accused of disappearing evidence for the case. The counsel representing the petitioner held that after the investigation process it was transpired that the daughter of the informant had run away from her matrimonial home and a letter regarding the same was discovered by the police. The body of the deceased was not yet recovered therefore the petitioner cannot be held guilty as he has no other criminal antecedent and is a simple man living in Patna whereas this incident took place in Saran therefore prayer of bail for the petitioner has been made before this Court as he was falsely implicated. Further, the counsel for the petitioner held that the informant filed for a compromise and stated that this case was filed due to misconception and during police investigation, even the witnesses had testified that the petitioner’s wife had herself run away from her home. The court directed the Additional Public Prosecutor to submit an up-to-date legible photocopy of the entire case diary of Nayagaon PS Case [No. 116 of 2019] from the Superintendent of Police, Saran, and also a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding whether the letter found to have been written by the wife of the petitioner was actually in her handwriting. The Additional Public Prosecutor forwarded the required documents as the court had directed which included the report of the Superintendent of Police, Saran, including the opinion of the police laboratory/CID, Bihar, with regard to the handwriting of the letter. With respect to these documents and reports, it was conceded that the wife of the petitioner had herself run away and the letter was found out to be her own handwriting when it was compared to her other specimen writings. The APP concluded that it was written by the same person (daughter of the informant). After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Court held that, “In view of what has come during the investigation as also the comparison of the letter said to have been written by the victim that she herself was leaving the house and the writing having been found to be of her after comparison of the specimen writings, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.” The Honourable Court concluded that “The petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to co-operate shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”