Jharkhand High Court
Girdhari Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1072 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.06.2004 and the order of
sentence dated 21.06.2004, passed by the learned 5th Additional Judicial
Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi, in Sessions Case No. 416 of
1991)
1. Girdhari Sahu
2. Tetri Devi
3. Ram Mohan Sahu ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants : Mrs. Jasvindar Majumdar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
--------
10/ 03.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.06.2004 & 21.06.2004,
respectively, passed by the learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner,
Fast Track Court, Ranchi, in Sessions Case No. 416 of 1991, whereby the
appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for seven years under Section 304B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the sister (deceased) of the
informant has committed suicide due to torture and non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry of her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants made following
submissions:
(i) There is no evidence of demand of dowry as such there cannot
be a case of 304B of the IPC.
(ii) No independent witness has been examined in this case.
(iii) Though the victim died within a period of 7 years but the fact
remains that she was regular patient of epilepsy and learned trial court has
ignored the version of defence witness.
(iv) Even by perusing the deposition of the informant, it would be
evident that the allegation of dowry was general and omnibus and further
there is no evidence of torture. As a matter of fact, the informant has
categorically deposed that the victim and the appellant were blessed with
one son.
Relying upon the aforesaid submissions learned counsel prays for
acquittal of the appellants.
5. Learned APP opposed the prayer for acquittal and submits that
the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellants. However, he fairly submits that as per record, there is no any
criminal antecedents of the appellants.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the impugned judgment and the documents available on LCR, it
appears that P.W.2 had categorically admitted in his cross examination that
the victim was suffering from some disease since long and her treatment
was also going on. He also admitted that even the relatives of the victim
used to come and see the victim while she was under treatment. The fact of
some decease is further corroborated by the deposition of P.W-3 who is
sister-in-law (Gotani) of the deceased, who had also admitted in para 2 that
the victim was suffering from some disease since long and she was under
regular treatment.
It further transpires that though there is an allegation of dowry
by P.W. 5 who has stated that the appellant used to write letters to her for
demand of dowry but no such letter has been exhibited. As a matter of fact,
she herself admitted that those letters were torn by the son-in-law namely,
Girdhari Sahu.
Last but not the least, the deposition of P.W. 4 clearly
transpires that there is no date of demand of dowry. Further, there is no
allegation of torture and above all, the appellant and the victim were
blessed with one son and this witness has admitted that he did not see who
had poisoned the victim.
7. The defense has also produced two witnesses and both have
deposed about the disease of the victim which was epilepsy.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions with respect to
deposition of several P.Ws. it is quite evident that the victim was suffering
from some disease and she was under regular treatment. In this
background, the deposition of Doctor became very important, inasmuch as,
he could not confirm the exact cause of death and that is the reason he
recommended for viscera report but unfortunately the viscera report is not
on record.
9. The learned trial court should have seen all these lacunae. As a
matter of fact, the learned trial court has not given any finding on the
statement of the P.Ws. as well as D.Ws. with respect to the disease of the
victim who was under regular treatment, as such there is no hesitation in
holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the main ingredient that it
was an unnatural death coupled with demand of dowry and/or torture soon
before the death of the victim.
At this stage, it is elucidated that though the death of the
victim was within 7 years but this Court cannot shut its eyes upon the
deposition of the P.Ws. themselves that she was under regular treatment for
some disease and the fact of the disease has also been given by the D.Ws.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the
impugned judgment requires interference. Consequently, the instant
criminal appeal stands allowed and the judgment of conviction the order of
sentence dated 18.06.2004 & 21.06.2004, respectively, passed by the
learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi, in
Sessions Case No. 416 of 1991, is hereby, quashed and set aside.
11. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their
bail bonds.
12. Let a copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to
the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
