Ranjit Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1321 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1063 of 2016

(Against the judgment of conviction dated 06 th August 2016 and the order of sentence
dated 08th August 2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga in
ST Case No. 56 of 2011)
                               --------
Ranjit Ram, s/o Jaydhar Ram, resident of village Dorotoli, PS and PO Kuru,
District Lohardaga                                          ...... Appellant
                                  Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                          ...... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Appellant          :   Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State              :   Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
                                 --------------
                                                                ORDER

th 27 March 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Ranjit Ram, Jaydhar Ram and Balmanti Devi were put on trial for committing the offence under sections 498-A and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. By an order dated 29th July 2015 an alternative charge under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against them.

3. Kuru PS Case No. 1 of 2011 was lodged against Ranjit Ram who is the husband, Shankar Ram who is the brother-in-law, Jaydhar Ram who is the father-in-law and Balmanti Devi who is the mother-in-law of Sumanti Devi @ Balak for committing her murder in furtherance of common intention and for causing harassment and torture in relation to demand of dowry.

4. In ST Case No. 56 of 2011 Jaydhar Ram and Balmanti Devi have been acquitted of the charge framed under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The trial judge has held that the evidence against Jaydhar Ram and Balmanti Devi is not sufficient to hold that they also caused harassment and torture to Sumanti Devi in connection to demand of dowry soon before 2 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1063 of 2016

her death.

6. Ranjit Ram has also been acquitted of the charge under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The trial Judge has discussed the prosecution evidence to establish the charge for offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code in the following manner:

"11. Having heard both the sides on the point of relevancy, sanctity as well as evidentiary value of the witnesses examined by the prosecution it is evident that deceased Sumanti Devi died in suspicious circumstances at her in-law's house within 7 years of her marriage. I do share the view of learned Addl.P.P. that, U/s 113 (B) of the Evidence Act there is presumption of law against the accused unless and until it is rebutted by adducing evidence to substantiate the cause of death. The accused can not be exonerated from the presumption as laid down U/s 113 (B) Evidence Act.

However, at the same time it is a law that, the presumption U/s 13 (B) Evidence Act is of any significance for conviction U/s 304 (B) IPC, if the death has occurred within 7 years of marriage. It must be proved by the prosecution that, the victim was subjected to cruelty by the accused in connection with demand of dowry and said death has been caused to the victim otherwise then under normal circumstances within 7 years of her marriage.

12. Evidently sharp cut injury was found on the back portion of the occipital region of Sumanti Devi above left ear and she died at her in-law's house. The victim died in suspicious condition therefore, the burden is on the accused to explain how the deceased died.

From the written report of the informant there is no whisper of demand of dowry. There is only allegation in the FIR that the accused persons often assault and abused the deceased nothing in the FIR why the accused tortured her and there is no whisper of demand of dowry.

In a decision reported in 2006 (2) Acquittal page 658 SC Hon'ble Apex Court opined that, "evidence did not show that any demand of dowry was made. Essential ingredient of dowry death i.e. demand for dowry was not establishes, conviction could not be sustained."

Before I deal with oral evidence adduced by the prosecution it is desirable to deal with the law of dowry death whether the evidence adduced has any nexus with the ingredients contained U/s 304(B) IPC.

In making out the offence of dowry U/s 304 (B) IPC following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution. (A) Death of the woman must have been occurred otherwise then under normal circumstances.

(B) Such death must have been occurred within seven years of her marriage.

(C) Soon before her death she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. (D) Such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand of the dowry. It is settled law that when the death occurs under unnatural circumstances it is immaterial whether it was result of suicide or homicide. Even assuming that it has a case of suicide it would be dowry death U/s 304 (B) IPC.

In a decision reported in 2015 (1) JLJR SC 119 Hon'ble Apex Court opined that, "There must be material to show that woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment 'for or in connection with dowry' the fact must show the existence of approximate live link between the 3 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1063 of 2016

fact or cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the victim."

Therefore, in view of the above legal position and the evidence available on the record no offence Us 304 (B) IPC is attracted against the accused persons.

The accused has been alternatively charged U/s 302 IPC."

8. However, Ranjit Ram has been held guilty for committing murder of his wife and by an order dated 8 th August 2016 he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. The trial Court has held as under:

"14. All the witnesses who had seen the dead body of Sumanti Devi found sharp cut injuries mark on the back side of the head of the deceased Sumanti Devi.

This ocular evidence has also been supported by the medical evidence. The doctor was examined as PW-4 in this case. He conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Sumanti Devi and found some external injuries they were-

(i) Skull and neck:- Lacerated wound measuring 1 & ½" X ½" X cavity deep on the left mastoid process with clotted blood on the whole thickness of the wound.

(ii) Lacerated wound 1" X ½" X ¼" on the back of left pinna.

(iii) A semi lunor lacerated wound measuring 3" X ½" X 1" deep on the left parietal region with clotted blood.

Doctor opined that, all the injuries were antimortem in nature and the death was caused due to intra cranial haemorrhage caused by heavy impact on the head by the blunt object.

The burden was on the accused Ranjit Ram to explain how his wife died in his house. The accused miserably failed to explain this burden.

There is no direct evidence to the occurrence therefore, the court has to rely upon circumstantial evidence.

The circumstantial evidence in its very context means a combination of facts creating in network from which there is no escape of the accused, because the fact taken as a whole did not admit any inference but the guilt of the accused Ranjit Ram in the murder of his wife. The circumstantial evidence does not prove the point in question directly but establishes it only by inference.

As to how Sumanti died in suspicious circumstances was within the knowledge of the accused Ranjit. The burden was shifted to the accused which he had not discharged. Adverse inference must be drawn against the accused Ranjit Ram (1997) 9 S.C.C. 3308.

There is no direct evidence to the occurrence therefore, the case rest on circumstantial evidence.

The legal position regarding the standard of proof and the test with the circumstantial evidence must satisfy is will settled by long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court.

The court laid down following five test to be satisfied in case based on circumstantial evidence:-

(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established.

(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.

(iii) The circumstances shall be of a conclusive nature and 4 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1063 of 2016

tenancy.

(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

(v) There must be chain of evidence so complete has not to live any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of the accused.

The above circumstances, the chain of evidence is complete with regard to the commission of the crime and undoubtedly points towards the guilt of the accused Ranjit Ram.

15. However, there is no such consistent evidence on record to establish that, Jaydhar Ram or Balmanti Devi were party to any dowry demand or any ill treatment meted out to Sumanti Devi.

16. Other co-accused Persons who are roped in the case along with Ranjit Ram happens to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Sumanti Devi. There is no convincing evidence that Jaydhar Ram or Balmanti Devi ever tortured or harassed the victim Sumanti Devi soon before her death for any demand of dowry.

Therefore, no offence stands made out against the accused Jaydhar Ram and Balmanti Devi either U/s 498(A), 304(B) or 302/34 IPC. Therefore, they deserves acquittal in this case for the charges levelled against them.

The accused persons namely Jaydhar Ram and Balmanti Devi are hereby acquitted from the charges levelled against them. As the accused are on bail. They are exonerated from the liability of their respective bail bonds.

17. However, on the basis of evidence adduced before the court, which is also supported with medical evidence the offence U/s 302 IPC stands made out against the accused Ranjit Ram and accordingly he is convicted thereof.

18. Accordingly, I find the accused Ranjit Ram guilty U/s 302 IPC. The accused is accordingly convicted thereof. The convict is in custody. Learned defence counsel submitted that, the case may be adjourned for hearing on the point of sentence. Convict Ranjit Ram sent back to jail till the date fixed. Put up on 08.08.2016 for hearing on the point of sentence."

10. The appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife in the matrimonial home by raising an inference under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

11. Chapter-VII under Part-III of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with "Burden of Proof". Section 101 provides that when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. However, there may be a case in which it is not known to the prosecution how the death of a person has occurred. Wherever it is found that a fact which is relevant is within the special knowledge of the accused and such fact cannot be unearthed by the investigating officer by any amount of enquiry and investigation, by operation of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden would shift upon the person who has special knowledge of such fact. Section 106 incorporates the principle of reverse 5 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1063 of 2016

burden which is not applied for the offence under the Indian Penal Code except where the Code itself provides so such as the offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, before an inference is drawn about culpability of the accused by operation of section 106 the prosecution is required to discharge its burden of proving a prima-facie case.

12. In "Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer" AIR 1956 SC 404 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the section 106 cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts.

13. In "Shambhu Nath Mehra" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and S. 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary. It is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.

The word "especially" stresses that it means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not. It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalle v. The King, 1936 PC 169 (AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R. 1936-3 ER 36 AT P. 49 (B).

............................................................................................................

13. We recognise that an illustration does not exhaust the full content of the section which it illustrate but equally it can neither curtail nor expand its ambit; and if knowledge of certain facts is as much available to the prosecution, should it choose exercise due diligence, as to the accused, the facts cannot be said to be especially" within the knowledge of the accused. This is a section which must be considered in a common sense way; and the balance of convenience and the disproportion of labour that would be involved in finding out and proving certain facts balanced against the triviality of the issue at stake and the ease with which the accused could prove them, are all matters that must be taken into consideration. The section cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts."

14. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The law on the subject is very clear that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is to be drawn must be of definite character and all circumstances taken together must indicate towards guilt of the accused and 6 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1063 of 2016

every possibility of innocence of the accused must be completely ruled out. Therefore while scrutinizing the prosecution evidence to establish the incriminating circumstances against the accused the Court must necessarily hold that the circumstances produced by the prosecution are completely incompatible with innocence of the accused.

15. In "Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh" AIR 1952 SC 343 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"10....It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In otherwords, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused...."

16. This is the prosecution evidence through PW1 who is the brother of Sumanti Devi that his sister has been murdered by her husband. On receiving information about death of his sister, PW1 had gone to Kuru PS where he saw injury marks over the back of the head of his sister. However this witness has admitted in the Court that the accused was staying with Sumanti Devi in a separate house. PW2 who is the mother of Sumanti Devi has made specific allegation against the appellant of committing marpit with Sumanti Devi. She has further stated that she gave Rs. 500/- to the appellant after two months of marriage but she has not seen the appellant committing murder of Sumanti Devi. Similarly, PW3 who is another brother of Sumanti Devi is not an eyewitness but he has seen injury mark over back of the head of his sister. He has stated in the Court that on account of various acts of harassment and torture his sister used to leave her matrimonial home frequently and would come back to his house.

17. PW4 Dr. Shambhu Nath Chaudhary has found lacerated wound of the size of 1 ½" x ½", cavity deep over the left mastoid, another lacerated wound of the size of 1" x ½" x ¼" on the back of left pinna and another semi lunar lacerated wound of size 3" x ½" x 1", deep on the left parietal region. PW4 has seen clotted blood around the lacerated injuries caused to Sumanti Devi. He has rendered an opinion that injuries to Sumanti Devi were caused by blunt object and her death has occurred due to intracranial 7 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1063 of 2016

haemorrhagic.

18. This is the prosecution evidence that the death of Sumanti Devi has occurred in her matrimonial home. The prosecution has also established that death of Sumanti Devi has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. PW4 Dr. Shambu Nath Chaudhary who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Sumanti Devi on 2 nd January 2011 has rendered an opinion that injuries found on her dead body were ante-mortem in nature. And, PW2 has clearly stated that Ranjit Ram committed marpit with her daughter in connection to demand of dowry. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the prosecution has not produced any witness to establish presence of the appellant in his house in the night of 31 st December 2010. But at the same time appellant has also remained silent when he was examined by the Court under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was a mere denial by the appellant of all the incriminating circumstances which were put to him under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The witnesses were examined in his presence in ST Case No. 56 of 2011 and the appellant was represented through his counsel all through. Therefore even if a piece of incriminating material was specifically not put to him under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that defect shall not affect the prosecution case. A husband who is living with his wife under the same roof is required to explain to the Court how his wife has died in the matrimonial home.

19. In "Jayantilal Verma v. State of M.P." (2021) 12 SCC 71 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"25. We are confronted with a factual situation where the appellant herein, as a husband is alleged to have caused the death of his wife by strangulation. The fact that the family members were in the home sometime before is also quite obvious. No explanation has been given as to how the wife could have received the injuries. This is a strong circumstance indicating that he is responsible for commission of the crime. The appellant herein was under an obligation to give a plausible explanation regarding the cause of the death in the statement recorded under Section 313CrPC and mere denial could not be the answer in such a situation."

20. This is not the case set-up by the appellant that in the night of 31st December 2010 he was not present in his house. He has also not set-up a defence that the murder of his wife has been committed by someone else and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is evidence of PW2 8 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 1063 of 2016

that the appellant committed marpit with his wife in her presence. May be the prosecution has failed to establish that soon before her death Sumanti Devi was subject to harassment and torture in connection to demand of dowry, the appellant has failed to discharge the burden that he was not involved in the crime. No doubt the burden which lies on the accused is a kind of preponderance of probability but from cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses we do not find any trace of false implication of the appellant. This also is required to be kept in the mind that within four years of marriage Sumanti Devi has died unnatural death in her matrimonial home. PW2, her mother, has deposed in the Court that at the time of her death Sumanti Devi was carrying pregnancy of 2 ½ months.

21. In "Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra" (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation."

22. In our opinion, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian penal Code for committing murder of his wife. Therefore, finding no ground to interfere in the matter, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1063 of 2016 is dismissed.

23. Let the lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith.

24. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 27th March 2023 Tanuj/ NAFR