Ram Kailash Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 6342 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ram Kailash Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2024

Author: Ambuj Nath

Bench: Ambuj Nath

                                Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1191 of 2004
                                               With
                                Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1336 of 2004
                                                 ---

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.06.2004 passed by Shri Ramendra Nath Rai, 4th Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2003.

---

1. Ram Kailash Mandal

2. Sumitra Devi --- --- Appellants [Cr. Appeal 1191/2004] Suresh Mandal @ Suresh Kumar Mandal --- Appellant [Cr. Appeal 1336/2004] Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent [Both cases]

---

For the Appellants: M/s Vani Kumari, Aniket Ranjan, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P

---

PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

---

      Reserved on: 09.05.2024                                  Pronounced on: 01.07.2024
                                                 ---

Ambuj Nath, J: Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.06.2004 passed by Shri Ramendra Nath Rai, 4 th Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2003 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 44 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 479 of 2002, holding the appellants Ram Kailash Mandal and Sumitra Devi (Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 1191 of 2004) and Suresh Mandal @ Suresh Kumar Mandal (Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1336 of 2004) guilty for the offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing them to undergo R.I for seven years.

2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the Informant Radhyshyam Mandal, alleging therein that his daughter Lalita Devi was married to the appellant Suresh Mandal in 1997. After marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home. Subsequently, appellants started demanding ten thousand rupees and a motorcycle. To enforce the demand, she was tortured. On 29.05.2002 at about 1.00 p.m., he was informed that his daughter Lalita Devi had died. On receiving this information, he went to her matrimonial home and found his daughter lying in the verandah on the cot. There was some reddish mark on her back, lips and cheek. Accordingly, this case was instituted under sections 304-B and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Charge was framed against the appellants for the offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Content of the charge was read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidences. On the basis of the evidences available on the record, learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offence under sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly.

5. Now, it has to be seen, whether prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts.

6. Radhey Shyam Madnal who is the Informant of this case, has been examined as P.W-1. He has supported the allegation as made out in the fardbeyan. He has stated that his daughter Lalita Devi was married to the appellant Suresh Mandal in the year 1997 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, his son-in-law Suresh Mandal and Samdhi Ram Kailash Mandal started demanding ten thousand rupees and a motorcycle. Informant had expressed his inability to fulfil the demand. Being agitated, both son-in-law of the Informant and his Samdhi did not get the Vidai of the daughter of the Informant. She was left in the house of the Informant for three years. However, in the year 1999, he went to the house of the appellants with some of his well-wishers and pleaded with both these appellants to perform Vidai of his daughter, after which, Vidai of his daughter was performed. His daughter used to tell him that unless their demands of ten thousand rupees and a motorcycle is fulfilled, she will continue to be tortured at the hands of the appellants. At para-4 of his deposition, he has stated that on 29.05.2002 he came to know that his daughter had died, on which, he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter with Ishwar Chandra Mandal, Jaggarnath Biswas and Moti Mandal and found her dead body lying in verandah on the cot. There was mark of injury on her back, cheek and lips. Villagers told him that to enforce the demand of motorcycle, there was quarrel between the appellants and the deceased. Thereafter, deceased was murdered. He has proved the fardbeyan and identified his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.-1.

He has been cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after Vidai ceremony of his daughter was performed, he had gone to her matrimonial home where again demand of dowry was reiterated. He has further stated that in June 2000 also, demand of dowry was reiterated by his son-in-law when he had come to his house with his daughter. He has not been cross-examined on the point that the marriage of his daughter Lalita Devi was performed with the appellant Suresh Mandal in the year 1997 and she died on 29.05.2002.

Ishwar Mandal (P.W-2) has stated that on 29.05.2002 Informant Radhey Shyam Mandal told him that his daughter had died, on which, he along with the Informant Radhey Shyam Mandal went to the house of Suresh Mandal and saw the dead body of

the deceased lying in the verandah on the cot. There was mark of violence on her cheek, back, stomach, leg and lips. On query, villagers told him that all the three appellants used to torture Lalita Devi. She was assaulted by the appellants, due to which, she died.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that the Informant had given him information about the death of Lalita Devi. Both the Informant and other persons had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased on Jeep.

Manoj Mondal (P.W-10) is the cousin of the deceased. He has stated that marriage of his sister was performed in the year 1997-98 and thereafter, she died on 29.05.2002. He had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased on coming to know about her death. He saw her lying on the cot. Appellants were not present in their house. There were sign of injury on her person. He has stated that the accused persons were demanding ten thousand rupees and a motorcycle and to fulfil the demand, deceased was tortured and ultimately, she died.

Shiv Shankar Yadav (P.W-3), Dashrath Thakur (P.W-4), Sudhir Thakur (P.W-5), Kamal Kishor Mandal (P.W-7) and Kamal Pandit (P.W-8) are co-villagers. They have stated that Lalita Devi was pregnant at the time of her death. They did not know that she was subjected to any cruelty by the appellants. They have also stated that due to pregnancy related complications, she died.

Dr. Shiv Shankar Bhagat (P.W-6) had performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following antemortem injuries on her person. i. Diffused swelling with Ecchymosis over the left side of chest.

ii.      Multiple ecchymosis over back.
iii.     Diffused swelling over face and lips.
iv.      Diffused swelling over both feet.

He has stated that the injury found on the person of the deceased was not sufficient to cause death. Accordingly, her viscera was preserved and sent for chemical examination. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext.-2.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that the injuries were simple in nature. He has further stated that the deceased was at the last stage of pregnancy and there was chance of anemic giddiness on account of the injury which may be caused by fall on hard surface.

7. From perusal of the postmortem report (Ext.2), it transpires that findings in the postmortem report by the doctor (P.W-6) fully corroborates his ocular account given in the court on the point of injury found on the person of the deceased and the cause of death.

Siddheswar Kerai (P.W-9) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the formal FIR which is Ext.-4. He has also proved the inquest report. He has proved the place of occurrence which is the matrimonial home of the deceased.

8. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidences, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased Lalita Devi died within seven years of her marriage. Prosecution has also been able to prove that the appellants Ram Kailash Mandal and Sumitra Devi used to demand dowry and to enforce the demand, they used to torture the deceased Lalita Devi. However, the prosecution has not been able to prove the cause of death of the deceased. Dr. Shiv Shankar Bhagat (P.W-6) has specifically stated that though, some injury was found on the person of the deceased, but those injuries were simple in nature and were not sufficient to cause death of the deceased. Viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis, but viscera report has not been produced by the prosecution. Dr. Shiv Shankar Bhagat (P.W-6) has stated that the deceased was at the last stage of pregnancy and there was chance of anemic giddiness due to which, deceased could have fallen and sustained injuries by falling on the hard surface.

9. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the deceased had died unnatural death. To prove the offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the deceased had died unnatural death.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the deceased Lalita Devi died an unnatural death. As such, no case under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code shall be made out against the appellants.

11. Both these appeals are allowed. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Appellants are on bail. Appellants and their bailors are discharged from the liability towards the bail bonds.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Ambuj Nath, J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 1st July 2024 Ranjeet/