Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.863 of 2016
WITH
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.658 of 2016
------
(Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 09.06.2016
and order of sentence dated 13.06.2016 passed by
Learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in
Sessions Trial No.561 of 2006)
------
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.863 of 2016
Shankar Ram, son of Nathuni Ram, resident of Bhuli, D-Block,
Sector-1, Quarter No.90, P.O. & P.S. Bhuli, District Dhanbad.
... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondent
WITH
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.658 of 2016
1. Nathuni Ram, son of Late Ram Rup Ram, resident of Bhuli, D
Block, Sector-1, Quarter No.90, P.O. & P.S. Bhuli, District
Dhanbad.
2. Punia Devi, wife of Nathuni Ram, resident of Bhuli, D Block,
Sector-1, Quarter No.90, P.O. & P.S. Bhuli, District Dhanbad.
... ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... Respondent
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Deepankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shashtri, A.P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
By Court, :
23rd October, 2024
These Criminal Appeals are preferred on behalf of the
appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 09.06.2016 and order of sentence dated
13.06.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII,
Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.561 of 2006, whereby and wherein
the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section
304(B)/ 34 I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304(B)/ 34 I.P.C.
2. Heard learned counsel representing the appellants
and learned A.P.P. representing the State and perused the
material available on record.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits
that the deceased has committed suicide as the Doctor stated
that he did not find any external or internal injury on the body of
the deceased. The cause of death has also not been mentioned
by the Doctor. He submitted that Ext.6 which is the viscera
report only suggests that Organo-phosphorus Pesticide was
detected which is highly poisonous but if the same is
administered upon the deceased by this appellant, there would
be some mark of injury, which is missing. He submits that the
report is dated 07.09.2010 whereas the sample was received on
22.08.2006. There is a huge time gap between the receipt of
sample and report. Considering the said time gap it can be
presumed that the report is not proper. He further submits that
there is no evidence that soon before death, dowry was
demanded. In absence of the evidence that soon before death,
dowry was demanded, the appellants cannot be convicted under
Section 304(B) IPC.
4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. representing the State after
going through the evidence of the prosecution submits that
admittedly the deceased died within seven years of marriage and
the death is unnatural as Organo-phosphorus Pesticide was
found in the viscera. He further submits that there is consistent
evidence that one motorcycle and Rs.25,000/- cash was being
demanded and the deceased used to inform her father that she
was been tortured, thus, there is evidence that dowry was
demanded and for non-payment of dowry, there was torture. He
fairly submits after going through the evidence that there is
nothing on record to suggest that soon before death, there was
demand of dowry and for non-fulfilment of the same, the
deceased was being tortured soon before death.
5. The F.I.R. is at the instance of father of the deceased
who is P.W.-3. He stated that the deceased was married with this
appellant in the month of July, 2001. Thereafter, the daughter
started living in her matrimonial home. After six months, she
was being tortured for demand of dowry and she was assaulted
also. When the deceased came to her father's house and stayed
there for eight months, she stated that she was being tortured
for demand of dowry. She went back after eight months. After
she returned, she was again tortured and the demand continued.
A criminal case was instituted in Gaya which was numbered as
Complaint Case No.1256 of 2003 making allegation of demand of
dowry. It has been mentioned that they were pressurized to
compromise the case and the said case was compromised.
Thereafter again the torture continued and she used to inform
the informant about the aforesaid fact. When this informant used
to visit the matrimonial home of the deceased, she was not
allowed to meet her father as she was sent somewhere during
that period. It has also been mentioned that the informant was
also assaulted at one point of time. On 12.08.2006, he received
information that his daughter is dead. He went to the
matrimonial home of his daughter and found her daughter lying
dead. Thus, he alleged that all the family members i.e. husband,
father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law
have committed murder of her daughter for dowry.
6. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, the F.I.R.
was lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against these appellants and their family members under Section
304(B)/ 34 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Thereafter, cognizance was taken by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate and the case was transferred to the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad who committed the case to the
Court of Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, where charge was framed
under Section 304B/ 34 of IPC and trial proceeded.
7. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has
examined altogether 13 prosecution witnesses.
8. We have gone through the entire evidence. From the
evidence, the fact which is clear is that the deceased was
married to the appellant - Shankar Ram on July, 2001 and she
died in August, 2006. This is the consistent evidence of the
prosecution and there is no contradiction to the same. Thus, the
prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased died within
seven years of marriage.
9. The Doctor who has conducted the post-mortem is
P.W.-8. He stated that there was no external or internal injury on
the body of the deceased. The post-mortem was marked as
Ext.2. He stated that the viscera was preserved for examination.
Ext.7 is the FSL report. As per the FSL report, on
examination of the viscera, Organo-phosphorus Pesticide which
is a poisonous substance used for agricultural purpose for killing
pests, was found in the viscera.
The aforesaid evidence suggests that the deceased
died as a result of consuming poison. It is pertinent to mention
here that the Doctor did not find any external injury nor any
scratch on the body of the deceased was found which would
suggest that poison was not administered by these appellants,
as if forcibly poison is to be administered, there will be mark of
violence. Since, it is a case of consumption of poison, there is
high probability that the deceased might have committed
suicide. Even if the deceased commits suicide, the case comes
within the purview of Section 304(B) IPC as the death by suicide
is also unnatural and is otherwise than in normal circumstances.
Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased
died otherwise than in normal circumstances.
10. Now, the next important ingredient is what are the
materials to suggest that "soon before death" there was a
demand of dowry and torture. From the evidence led by the
prosecution specially the informant P.W.-3, we find that he has
stated that there was demand of motorcycle and Rs.25,000/-
cash, but from the entire evidence of prosecution we cannot find
that "soon before death", there was demand and torture.
Definitely the demand and torture was after the marriage and for
that, complaint case was filed. The complaint case which was
filed earlier by the deceased was of the year 2003 and the same
was compromised. The death occurred in the year 2006.
Though it has come that thereafter also demand was made but
the said statements are vague and omnibus, without any
mention of period.
11. We, therefore do not find any material to suggest that
"soon before death" there was demand of dowry and torture. In
absence of the aforesaid ingredient, it would not be possible for
this Court to convict the appellants under Section 304(B) IPC, as
all the three ingredients i.e. demand of dowry and torture soon
before death, death within seven years of marriage and the
cause of death otherwise than in normal circumstances, should
exist simultaneously. In this case, one of the ingredients is
missing.
12. Thus, we are inclined to acquit these appellants from
offence under Section 304(B) IPC.
13. Accordingly, both these Criminal Appeals are
allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated
09.06.2016 and order of sentence dated 13.06.2016 passed by
Learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in Sessions
Trial No.561 of 2006, are hereby set aside. The appellant -
Shankar Ram in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.863 of 2016 be
released, if not wanted in any other. The appellants namely
Nathuni Ram and Punia Devi in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.658 of
2016, are on bail. They are discharged of the liabilities of the bail
bonds so are the bailers.
14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands
disposed of.
15. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court
concerned.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 23/10/2024
NAFR / Prashant
