Jharkhand High Court
2013 vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.611 of 2017
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2017 and order of sentence dated
15.02.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.13 of
2014 [arising out of Jharia (Lodna) P.S. Case No.445 of 2013 & G.R. No.4430 of
2013].
Srikant Chauhan, S/o Late Nand Lal Chauhan, R/o Saramik Kalyan Lodna 40
Dhaura, P.O. & P.S. Lodna, District- Dhanbad. ... ...Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ... Respondent
PRESENT
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Aurn Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sushant Kr. Ganjhu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP
.....
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State.
1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against Judgment of conviction dated
10.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 15.02.2017 passed by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.13 of 2014 [arising out of Jharia
(Lodna) P.S. Case No.445 of 2013 & G.R. No.4430 of 2013] whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for
10 years for the offence under Section 304B/ 34 IPC.
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, as per fardbeyan of informant Sonia Devi,
(mother of deceased) is that the marriage of her daughter Jyoti Devi was
solemnized with Shrikant Chouhan (appellant) in the month of Fagun 2010.
Good marital relation lasted only for few days after the marriage, thereafter
appellant and his mother Sonia Devi started subjecting her to cruelty and
harassment in reference to dowry demand of Rs. 45,000/-. It is alleged that on
14.10.2013 after Durga Puja, appellant after quarrelling with her daughter, took
her from her maike and due to non- fulfilment of dowry demand, in the night
of 23/24.10.2013 at about 2:30 AM appellant, and his mother Sonia Devi set
her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. On 24.10.2013 at about 5:30 AM having
received the information of death, informant came and found her daughter in
burnt condition.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police instituted First
Information Report being Jharia P.S. Case No.445 of 2013 under Section
304B/34 IPC against the appellant and his mother.
4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet under Section 304B/ 34
IPC and cognizance was taken and appellant and his mother were put on trial
for offence under Section 304 B and 302 of the IPC.
5. In order to prove the case, altogether eight witnesses have been examined by
the prosecution who are P.W.1 to P.W.8 and relevant documents have been
adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits.
6. After prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons was recorded
under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Defence is of innocence and false implication. The
defence has also examined witnesses i.e. D.W.1 to D.W.5 on their behalf, but
no documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused person(s).
7. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the argument of the appellant and after
going through the records, convicted the appellant for committing the offence
under Sections 304 (B)/ 34 IPC whereas his mother was acquitted of the
charge.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that only interested and
related witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and not a single
independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution
has failed to prove against the appellant about demand of dowry made by him
soon before the death of the deceased. It is further argued that P.W.2 (brother
of the deceased) has deposed in his cross-examination that appellant took the
deceased (wife) to the Nursing Home to save her life. P.W.3 (uncle of the
deceased) has specifically stated that no demand was made in his presence.
9. It is submitted that that presumption as to dowry death would get attracted only
upon the proof that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in
connection with any demand for dowry by the accused in the reasonable
contiguity of death. The specific case of the prosecution is that the appellant
and his mother set the deceased on fire by sprinkling Kerosene Oil for demand
of dowry, but post-mortem report of the deceased has been proved and marked
as Ext.2 wherein nothing has been stated about smell of Kerosene Oil.
10. It is submitted that there is contradiction regarding the factum of subjecting to
cruelty and harassment of deceased in connection with demand of dowry.
Another witness i.e. P.W.7 has also not supported the factum of subjecting the
deceased to cruelty and harassment of deceased in connection with demand of
dowry by the accused persons. The prosecution has also failed to prove the
manner and circumstance of the occurrence.
11. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence. The marriage of the deceased (Jyoti Devi) and the
appellant was solemnized in the year 2010 and death of the deceased occurred
on 23/24.10.2013 due to burning, as such, death occurred within seven years of
marriage.
12. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials available
on records.
13. There cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition that presumption under
Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be raised only if the foundational facts
are proved. It is not in dispute that the deceased died due to unnatural death
within seven years of the marriage. Doctor has proved the post-mortem
examination report in which the cause of death is stated to be extensive 85%
burn injuries. It is consistent case of the prosecution that there was persistent
dowry demand of Rs.45,000/- and only ten days before the incidence, the
appellant had taken the deceased (wife) from her parents' house after much
quarrelling and bickering for dowry. This has come in the testimony of P.W.1
at Para-1, P.W.2 at Para-6, P.W.3 at Paras 2, 3 and 4, P.W.4 in Para-2 and 3 as
well as P.W.5 at Para-1.
14. Testimony of these witnesses cannot be discarded only for the reason that they
happen to be related to the deceased. After all it is only the family members
who can be in knowing of matters regarding dowry demand and cruelty in
reference to it. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must
have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or other
convicted, because he had some animus towards the accused. Related witness is
not equivalent to interested witness. It has been held in Dalip Singh and Ors. v.
State of Punjab, (1953) 2 SCC 36
24. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she
springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means
unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely.
15. Failure of the autopsy surgeon to note trace of kerosene oil on the dead body
cannot have any bearing on the prosecution case, as it is an established fact that
death was due to extensive burn injuries.
16. On the basis of these overwhelming evidence, we are of the view that the
prosecution has established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in
reference to dowry demand soon before her death. In this view of the matter,
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is liable to be drawn in
the facts and circumstances of the present case. The defence has miserably
failed to discharge its onus that the death was not caused because of harassment
meted out to the deceased on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand.
Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence.
As such, the instant Criminal Appeal (DB) stands dismissed.
Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned at once.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated 23.09.2024
sandeep/
