Dolati Devi Wife Of Puran Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10504 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dolati Devi Wife Of Puran Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1220 of 2016
        [Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 14.09.2016 and order of
        sentence dated 19.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions
        Judge-IV, Deoghar in SessionsCase No.220 of 2015]
        1. Dolati Devi wife of Puran Paswan
        2. Puran Paswan son of Late Dukhi Paswan
           Both resident of Village Bandarbasa, P.O. & P.S. Devipur,
           District Deoghar                 .... .... .... Appellants
                                   --Versus--
        The State of Jharkhand               .... .... .... Respondent

        For the Appellants
                         : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
        For the State    : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
                         -----
        PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                   SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
                           -----
                           JUDGMENT

Reserved on: 28.10.2024 Pronounced On:19.11.2024

Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Appellants are before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 304B/34 of the IPC.

2. Appellants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law and they have been convicted for committing dowry death.

3. As per the fardbeyan, daughter of the informant was married to Mukesh Paswan in 2013. After the marriage, his daughter commenced her normal marital life in her matrimonial home. It is alleged that after some time, her in-laws and husband started harassing her for a motorcycle. This was complained by the deceased to her parents. It was more than two years after marriage, and insinuations were made against her for failing to bear a child. On the eve of marriage of the daughter of appellants, a demand of Rs.10,000/- was made. It is alleged that for the demand of motorcycle, his daughter was done to death by her husband and in-laws.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Devipur P.S. Case No.85/15 was

registered under Sections 304B/34 of the IPC against the husband of the deceased- Mukesh Paswan, appellants and their son Ram Vilash Paswan. Police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and Ram Vilash Paswan, while keeping investigation pending against Mukesh Paswan. Ram Vilash Paswan was declared juvenile and his trial was separated and sent for enquiry to the Juvenile Justice Board. Appellants were put on trial for offence under Section 304B/34 and 302/34 of the IPC.

5. Altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents including post-mortem examination report and fardbeyan were adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits.

6. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that there was contradictory evidence with regard to the dowry demand. In the fardbeyan, there is specific reference to demand of Rs.10,000/- in connection with marriage of daughter of the appellants which will not come within the definition of dowry. It is argued that there is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand soon before her death.

7. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.

8. Death was caused by burn injury, is not in a shadow of doubt and has been duly proved by the post-mortem examination which was conducted by a Medical Board of three Doctors. One of the Members of the Board (P.W.7) has proved the post-mortem examination report which has been marked as Exhibit 3, 3/1 and 3/2. As per the post- mortem examination report, it was a case of 100% burn injury. No offensive or defensive injury was found over the body. On behalf of the defence, it was suggested that burn was accidental, possibility of which was not ruled out by the Doctor.

9. It is also not disputed that the unnatural death took place within seven years of marriage. Place of occurrence has been established by

the consistent account of the witnesses, the description of which has been given by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) in para 6 of his examination-in-chief to be situated in the house of the appellants. Her dead body was found in a burnt condition in the house in front of the door.

10. Unnatural death within seven years of marriage is thus proved beyond any iota of doubt.

11. Dowry deaths are committed within the four corners of the matrimonial home and therefore, there is always difficulty in getting direct evidence regarding the circumstances resulting death. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has been enacted to plug this gap and statutory presumption of dowry death arises, once the foundational facts are proved. It is immaterial whether death was suicidal or homicidal in nature. If death takes place within seven years of the marriage preceded by dowry demand and there is evidence of the deceased being subjected to cruelty in connection to it, soon before her death, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act shall be raised that it was a case of dowry death. This presumption is a rebuttable presumption and onus shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption of dowry death.

12. In the present case, a young bride 21 years of age, dies barely within two years after the marriage in her matrimonial home with 100% burn injury. Her husband absconded and her father-in-law and mother-in law are before this Court in appeal against the Judgment of conviction.

13. Appellants were not the sole occupants of the house where the incidence took place. Husband, who was also living with the deceased, absconded after the incidence and has successfully evaded law of the land. Had the appellants been the sole occupants of the house, presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act could have been drawn that it was incumbent on their part to explain as to how she suffered 100% burn injury. As stated earlier the husband of the

deceased absconded and these appellants remained at the place of occurrence and were arrested from there as per the testimony of I.O. (P.W. 8 in para 9).

14. There is merit in the argument made on behalf of the appellants that payment of Rs.10,000/- by the informant to the appellants for their daughter's marriage, shall not come within the definition of dowry. This amount was neither demanded nor paid in connection with the marriage of the deceased.

15. What survives is the demand of a motorcycle since the time of marriage. Evidence on this is inconsistent and does not inspire confidence.

P.W. 1 is the informant and father of the deceased. He stated that his daughter was harassed in connection with demand of a motorcycle from the time of marriage. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had good relation with the in-laws of the deceased and about 50 times deceased had come to her natal home after marriage. His testimony does not gives an impression that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to the demand of motorcycle, rather the relationship was quite normal.

P.W. 3 is the uncle of the deceased. He has also levelled omnibus allegation of harassment in reference to dowry demand of motorcycle. He has levelled another cause of harassment, for her inability to bear child even after two years of the marriage, for which she used to be strained.

P.W. 4 is the brother of the deceased who has not whispered a word regarding any dowry demand or her harassment for any reason.

P.W. 5 is also cousin brother of the deceased and he has deposed that earlier the in-laws were demanding a motorcycle, but has not stated anything about harassment in reference to it.

P.W. 6 has made an omnibus allegation of harassment in reference to dowry demand, but has conceded in para 17 of the cross- examination that source of his knowledge to be, as told by Bhuneshwar

and had no personal knowledge about the incidence.

16. On reading the prosecution evidence in its totality, it is difficult to accept that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with dowry demand soon before her death. As per the account of the father of the deceased, she had frequented to her natal home almost 50 times in two years during her marital life, and on occasions, she was accompanied by her brother-in-law. Out of her brothers, her own brother, does not say anything about the dowry demand, and another cousin refers to a demand of motorcycle, but is silent about any harassment. On these evidences, it cannot be held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand soon before her death so as to draw presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

17. Under the circumstance, appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is set aside.

Criminal Appeal is allowed.

Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.

                                            (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)


Ananda Sen, J.      I agree.
                                                  (Ananda Sen, J.)
        High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

        Dated, 19th November, 2024

        AFR/Anit