Ramnath Soni vs The State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 4122 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 1999(R)

Ramnath Soni, son of Sri Triveni Sao Soni, resident of village: Bishunpur,
PS: Begusarai, District: Begusarai.                     ... Appellant
                                  -Versus-
The State of Bihar now Jharkhand         ...              ... Respondent

      CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

            For the Appellant        : Mr. A.S. Dayal, Advocate;
                                       Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate
            For the State            : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, APP
                                       ...

CAV on:11/10/2023                           Pronounced on:01/ 11 /2023
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This criminal appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 23.12.1998, passed by the learned III rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1998 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in fardbeyan of Deo Nandan Choudhary(PW-5), given to S.I. officer-in-charge of Angara police station at village: Halu at 9:25 a.m. alleging that the informant with consent of his mother-in-law married his daughter Chandani Devi with Ramnath Soni, son of Triveni Saw, resident of village: Bishnupur, PS: Begusarai, District: Begusarai. The marriage was performed in Court. The bridegroom was a goldsmith by profession. Daughter of informant Chandani Devi, thereafter, remained at her sasural for three months and on returning the girl praised her in-laws. The son-in-law of informant asked the informant to let his wife remain with him as son-in-law did not have any house in Ranchi and since last one year this continued. On 21.09.1995 at 4:00 p.m. Ramnath Soni came with his friend, at that time Chandani was not at her house rather was in bazar. Ramnath Soni asked about Chandani from the youngest daughter of informant Sandhya Kumari who informed that Chandani has gone to the bazar at Gondlipokhar. Thereafter, Ramnath Soni went to call Chandani Devi and returned with her and then asked her to give Rs.2,500/- which was given to the friend of Ramnath Soni. Ramnath Soni then went to see of his friend at the local bus stand. Ramnath Soni returned from bazar 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 1999(R)

bringing fish and asked the son of informant to bring 'Hariya' which he consumed. Thereafter, Ramnath Soni went to the house of Shyam Choudhary which was rented by the informant for his daughter and son-in- law. They returned back at 7:00 p.m. and Ramnath Soni asked the daughter of informant Priti Kumari to bring some snacks. At 7:30 p.m., the informant came from his house and disclosed that Chandani had fallen, whereupon the informant, his mother, daughter and other members of family went to the room and noticed Chandani fallen on the floor and unconscious. Then the younger brother of informant Babloo alias Suresh Choudhary and accused Ramnath Soni took Chandani to Dr. Ram Sewak at Gondlipokhar who instructed that she be taken to Ranchi. Then they returned to room and Chandani was laid on a chowki. Then Suresh Choudhary went to return the rickshaw and Ramnath Soni left the house saying that he will bring a doctor and did not return. Subsequently, at 10:30 p.m. Chandani Devi died. It is alleged that Ramnath Soni murdered Chandani by administrating poison to her. On the basis of these allegation the formal FIR (Exhibit-2) was drawn and Angara PS Case No. 71 of 1995 dated 22.09.1995 under section 302 IPC against the accused Ramnath Soni was instituted.

4. The police after investigating the case found the case true under section 302 IPC and submitted charge-sheet under section 302 IPC against the appellant Ramnath Soni and cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under section 302 was framed against the appellant and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal.

5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined the following witnesses: PW-1 Suresh Choudhary; PW-2 Archana Devi; PW-3 Sarita Devi; PW-4 Sandhya Kumari; PW-5 Deo Nandan Choudhary, the informant; PW-6 Girja Pd. Sharma, SI of Police; PW-7 Anil Kr. Singh, SI of Police, the IO of the case; PW-8 Anil Kr. Mishra, SI of Police; PW-9 Dr. R.S. Sahu, who held post-mortem over dead body of deceased and PW-10 Gopal Jee Jha, Scientific Assistant in Forensic Laboratory, Ranchi Branch.

6. PW-5 is Deo Nandan Choudhary, who is the informant and the father of the deceased. He deposed that he had met Ramnath Soni in the market. Ramnath Soni purchased fish and came to the house and asked the son of PW-5 to bring Haria (local drink) and consumed the same in the 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 1999(R)

house. PW-5 returned his house at 7:00 p.m. Thereafter, Ramanath Soni and Chandani went to their room which they had taken on rent.Thereafter, Ramnath Soni came running and informed that Chandani had fallen from the chowki. Then PW-5, his mother and another daughter went to the room of Ramnath Soni and found Chandani fallen down and in an unconscious state. PW-5 further deposed that his brother Suresh Choudhary and Ramnath Soni took Chandani to the local doctor at Gondlipokhar but the doctor told them to take Chandani to Ranchi. Thereafter, they returned from the doctor's place and his brother Suresh Choudhary went to return the rickshaw of the neighbour. Ramnath Soni went out of the house saying that he will make alternative arrangement and thereafter never returned. Informant further deposed in his fardbeyan that he had raised suspicion that Ramnath Soni had given poison to Chandani Devi. He further deposed that Ramnath Soni and Chandani had a love marriage and both were married in Court. In his cross-examination, informant has stated that there was love between Chandani and Ramnath Soni and Chandani did not make any complaint about her in-laws when she lived with her in-laws. Informant had seen Ramnath Soni and Chandani going to their room and had not heard any alarm. Ramnath Soni and Chandani resided in one part and the other room was used by another family. Informant further stated that he had not seen anybody administering poison to Chandani and that neither had the police seized any incriminating article from the room of Chandani.

7. PW-4 is Sandhya Kumari and she is younger daughter of PW-5 and sister of the deceased. PW-4 has deposed that her brother-in-law came from bazar and brought fish from market. Vikash, the brother of PW-4 brought some Haria (local drink) which Ramnath Soni took in the house and both, Ramnath Soni and Chandani went to the room. After some time Ramnath Soni came and said Chandani had fallen from chouki. PW-4 then went and noticed that Chandani was trying to vomit something and Ramnath Soni was pressing the mouth then Chandani fainted. In her cross- examination, she has stated that at that time she went the room of her sister, she was semi-conscious and Ramnath Soni was trying to revive her. PW-4 further stated in her cross-examination that her sister had remained in Begusarai for three mothers, earlier they were deeply in love though it had 4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 1999(R)

waned recently. She further stated that Ramnath Soni used to give her sister money.

8. PW-1 is Suresh Choudhary, who is the younger brother of the informant. He has deposed that after Chandani's marriage to Ramnath Soni she has remained in her sasural for few months at Begusarai and thereafter returned to Ranchi and was residing as a tenant in a adjacent house to PW-1. On the day of incident, Ramnath Soni had come to the house and made inquiry about Chandani and learnt that Chandani had gone to market then Ramnath Soni went to the market and returned back with Chandani. Thereafter, Ramnath Soni gave some money to a friend who had come along with him and then went to see off his friend to the bus stand and on returning he had brought fish from the market which was cooked at the house. PW-1 has further deposed that Ramnath Soni had asked Vikash to bring Haria and took Haria at the house and then both Chandani and Ramnath Soni went to their room. PW-1 further deposed that his nephew disclosed that Chandani was not feeling well and then PW-1 went to the room and noticed Chandani had fallen from chowki. Thereafter, Chandani was taken to local doctor by rickshaw and at that time she was not conscious, the doctor advised them to take her to Ranchi. PW-1 further deposed that Chandani's tongue was protruding. PW-1 has stated that Ramnath Soni had given her poison. PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that he had not seen Ramnath giving poison to Chandani and he had not heard any alarm.

9. PW-9 is Dr. R.S. Sahu, who had conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was posted as medical officer at the relevant time. He has further deposed that there was no evidence of any mechanical injury either external or internal and there was no evidence of pressure over her neck, mouth or chest. The internal organs were congested. Stomach contained pasty materials about 150 grams. Opinion regarding the cause of death was kept reserved and viscera had also been preserved. Doctor further stated that the nail became blue and stomach was congested. However, in his cross-examination, doctor stated that from the post-mortem examination the cause of death could not be ascertained.

5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 1999(R)

10. PW-10 is Gopal Jee Jha. He was posted as Scientific Assistant in Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi. He has exhibited viscera report of the deceased which was marked as Ext. - 5/1. He has stated that in the viscera report no metallic or pesticidal poison could be detected. In his cross-examination, he has stated that no poisonous material was found in the viscera of the deceased Chandani Devi.

11. PW-7 is Anil Kr. Singh, who has deposed that he was posted as ASI at Angara Police Station during the time of incident. At that time, he had taken the investigation of the case. He had prepared inquest report of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and had recorded the subsequent statement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence was the house of Deo Nandan Choudhary. In the front room of the house, the dead body of Chandani Devi was kept. Deceased Chandani Devi was also living in the house of Jawaharlal Choudhary, which was adjacent to the house of the informant. He had sent the dead body of the deceased to RMCH for post-mortem. During investigation, he had recorded the statement of Sarita Devi PW-3,Sandhya Kumari PW-4 and Archana Devi PW-2. PW-7 had tried to arrest the accused person. He had received the post-mortem report of the deceased and recorded it in the case diary. In his cross-examination, PW-7 stated that he had not found anything significant at the place of occurrence and had not noticed anything oozing out of the mouth of the deceased. PW-7 further deposed that Suresh Choudhary, who is PW-1, in his statement had not stated before him that the deceased person's tongue was protruding out.

Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant:

12. Mr. A.S. Dayal, the learned counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. P.S. Dayal, has submitted that: (i) in this case, the prosecution has not proved or established the motive; (ii) it has come from the evidence of the witnesses examined that the relation between the appellant and the deceased was cordial; (iii) the learned trial Court has observed that it was a case of circumstantial evidence and hence, in absence of motive and further absence of any evidence establishing cause of death, the chain of circumstance cannot be said to be complete to warrant conviction of this appellant; (iv) no any neighbouring witnesses have been examined in this case; (v) the prosecution witnesses examined in this case have tried to make 6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 1999(R)

subsequent developments in the prosecution story; (vi) the prosecution witnesses examined in this case have all given contradictory evidences; (vii) Doctor, who held post-mortem examination had stated that the reason of death could not be established; (viii) the viscera preserved in this case was sent for chemical examination by the expert and in view of the expert PW- 10, no poison was found; (ix) as is apparent from the evidence on record, the prosecution could not establish the cause of death because according to doctor PW-9, there was no injury found of any nature and according to PW- 10, who is Assistant Scientist, in FSL, Ranchi, there was no poison found in the viscera and (x) the Investigating Officer did not find any incriminating material from the alleged place of occurrence.

Arguments of the learned counsel for the State:

13. Mrs. Ruby Pandey, the learned counsel for the State, has argued that in this case it has been stated by the informant that when Chandani Devi became unconscious, then informant's brother Suresh Choudhary and appellant Ramnath Soni, had gone to the local doctor and they were advised to go RMCH. Thereafter, they returned home and Suresh Choudhary went to return rickshaw and in the meantime Ramnath Soni went out of the house and never returned. He has further deposed that appellant Ramnath Soni had given poison to Chandani Devi. The learned counsel for the State has pointed out to the evidence of Sandhya Kumari, who is the younger sister of the deceased and another daughter of the informant and submitted that after the accused came from bazar and brought fish, he had asked Vikash, the brother of PW-4 to bring Haria and then Rammath Soni took Haria and Chandani Devi and Ramnath Soni went to their room. Thereafter, Ramnath Soni came and disclosed that Chandani had fallen from the chouki. Consequently, it was noticed that she was trying to vomit something and her sister became unconscious. Then Suresh Choudhary, who is her uncle and appellant Ramnath Soni, had taken Chandani to local doctor and they were advised to take her to RMCH, Ranchi and thereafter Ramnath Soni, went out from the house and never returned. Therefore, as per evidence of both the informant and PW-4, this conduct of appellant is highly suspicious. Hence, on the basis of the circumstantial situation guilt of the appellant shall be sustained. Learned counsel has further relied on the evidence of doctor wherein it has been indicated that the nail became blue, stomach congested 7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 1999(R)

and mucus membrance showed sign of poisoning. Based on the aforesaid circumstances the guilt of the accused or the appellant herein can be sustained.

CONCLUSION

14. Having heard both the counsels, gone through the records of the case that are available and in the above facts and circumstances, it is seen in the evidence of PW-9, who is Dr. R.S. Sahu and who had conducted the post-mortem and he has himself stated that rigor mortis was present and abdomen was distended and nail was blue. There was no evidence of any mechanical injury either external or internal. Further there was no evidence of pressure over neck, mouth or chest. Further the opinion regarding cause of death was kept reserved. In his cross examination he has stated that from the post-mortem examination cause of death could not be ascertained. Moreover, from the evidence of PW-10 Gopal Jee Jha, who was posted as Scientific Assistant in Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi, it is seen that he had exhibited the viscera report of the deceased Chandani Devi and the entire report of the deceased Chandani Devi was marked as Exhibit-5/1. PW-10 has stated that in the viscera report, there was no metallic, pesticidal or volatile poison could be detected. Further, in his cross-examination he has stated that no poisonous material was found in the viscera of the deceased Chandani Devi. What is to be noted is that there has been allegation of poisoning by appellant Ramnath Soni to the deceased, but, it is clear from the evidence of the doctor as well as forensic science expert that this was not the case and that no poisonous material was found in the viscera. Therefore, how Chandani Devi died remains a mystery. Doctor himself has stated that cause of death could not be ascertained. Therefore, as far as poisoning goes, poisoning of the deceased is clearly an allegation. We also come to the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-7, who had taken over the investigation and Investigating Officer has also stated that he had not prepared any seizure list at the place of occurrence. Moreover, he had not found any significant material at the place of occurrence which would indicate that any material that could be suspected to have led to the poisoning of the deceased or even any arms or weapon that could have been used for assault. He had prepared the inquest report of the deceased but he had not noticed anything oozing out from the mouth of the deceased.

8 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 1999(R)

Moreover, PW-7 had also stated that Suresh Choudhary PW-1, had not stated before him that the deceased person's tongue was protruding out. Even in the evidence of the informant, it is not indicated that relationship between Chandani Devi and Ramnath Soni was strained rather it comes out from the evidence that it was a love marriage and the relationship was at least not disturbed. Even from the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, it is indicated that Ramnath Soni had gone with Chandani Devi to his room and then after some time Ramnath Soni returned and informed that Chandani Devi had fallen and then they had gone to the room of Ramnath Soni and saw that Chandani Devi had fallen down and she was unconscious. In fact, in the cross-examination of PW-4, it is indicated that even Ramnath Soni was trying to revive her. So though the situation may be of concern taken from the evidence of the doctor as well as forensic science report,there does not seem to be any sign of any poisoning. There does not seems to be any reason for sustaining poisoning and the cause of death is certainly not ascertained. In that view of the matter, we do not see how it could be possible to sustain the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and its accompanying sentence to undergo imprisonment for life.

15. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 23.12.1998, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1998 are set aside.

16. The appellant is on bail. He along-with his bailors are discharged from the liabilities towards the bail bond.

17. This criminal appeal is allowed.

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated: 01 / 11 /2023 S.B.