Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 79 of 2019
Vijay Sao --- --- Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Upendra Kumar Sao
3. Tapeshwar Sao
4. Sakhiya Devi --- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Appellant: Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State: Mr. Anjani Kr. Toppo, A.P.P.
For the Resp. Nos. 2-4: Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
---
08 / 06.05.2024 Appellant Vijay Sao has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal
passed by Shri Sujit Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra in
Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2017 arising out of Pathalgada P.S. Case No. 18 of 2017
corresponding to G.R. No. 1044 of 2017, whereby and wherein, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra acquitted the Respondents Upendra Kumar
Sao, Tapeshwar Sao and Sakhiya Devi of the charges under sections 304B and 328
of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the
Informant Vijay Sao, the present appellant, alleging therein that his daughter Anu
Kumari @ Lila Devi was married to Upendra Kumar Sao (Respondent No. 2) in
the year 2011. After the marriage, there was demand of Rs. 1.00 lakh by the
Respondents. To enforce the demand, she was tortured and ultimately, she was
murdered on 03.05.2017 by the Respondents by poisoning her.
3. From perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, it appears from the
viscera report of the deceased which was sent for forensic science laboratory that
no poison could be traced in the viscera of the deceased and as such, it cannot be
said that she died unnatural death.
4. Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
has drawn attention of this court to the findings of Dr. Pankaj Kumar (P.W-8)
given in the post-mortem report, that the stomach content of the deceased was
having corrosive smell. On the basis of this finding, he has given opinion that the
death of the deceased was due to cardiac respiratory failure secondary to
poisoning.
5. For an offence to be proved under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code,
following ingredients needs to be satisfied,
(i) that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage,
(ii) deceased had died unnatural death and,
(iii) she was subjected to cruelty to enforce the demand of dowry soon before her
death.
One of the main ingredients which the prosecution was required to prove to
secure conviction of the Respondents was that the deceased had died an unnatural
death
6. It is evident from the findings in the post-mortem report that the cause of
death was cardiac respiratory failure secondary to poisoning. This finding was on
the basis of corrosive smell of the stomach content. However, he has stated that
there was no external, mechanical or internal injury and no instrument was
available in Chatra to detect the poison in the dead body of the deceased.
7. From the statement of the doctor (P.W-8), it is evident that entire case is
dependent upon the viscera report of the deceased. The Forensic Science
Laboratory report has been marked Ext.-A without objection. It further appears
from the judgement of the learned Trial Court that FSL report indicated that no
poison could be detected in the portion of the viscera.
8. In view of the findings given in the viscera report, it cannot be said that the
deceased died an unnatural death due to poisoning. Accordingly, one of the main
ingredients to section 304B of the Indian Penal Code that the deceased had died
unnatural death due to poisoning has not been proved. In absence of any evidence
that the deceased was poisoned to death, no case under section 328 of the Indian
Penal Code will also be made out.
9. We do not find any illegality in the judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned Trial Court acquitting the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 of the charges for the
offences under sections 304B and 328 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
10. This acquittal appeal is dismissed.
Pending I.A. (s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J)
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
Uploaded
