Navlakho Devi vs State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1332 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.137 of 1995
======================================================

Navlakho Devi, wife of Sri Mahavir Prasad, resident of village:Chakradaha, Bari Khagaul, P.S. Khagaul, District-Patna.

... ... Appellant.

Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Amicus Curiae.

For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR)

Date : 24-02-2022

By this appeal, appellant/original accused no.1

Navlakho Devi who happens to be mother-in-law of deceased

Lalita Devi is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 18th

April, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-

VIII, Patna, in Sessions Trial No.205 of 1994 thereby convicting

her of the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian

Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for life.

2. The facts projected from the police report leading

to the prosecution of appellant/original accused no.1 Navlakho

Devi can be summarized thus:

(a). Lalita Devi (since deceased) married acquitted Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

accused no.2 Madan Prasad and had started cohabiting with him

in the house of her in-laws. Appellant/convicted accused

Navlakho Devi is mother of acquitted accused no.2 Madan

Prasad.

(b). According to the prosecution case, on

15.02.1993, Lalita Devi was taking food at 12.00 O' clock in the

night. At that time, appellant/accused no.1 Navlakho Devi came

near her, started abusing her, pulled her Saree, sprinkled

kerosene oil on her person and set Lalita Devi on fire by a

burning matchstick. Lalita Devi sustained burn injuries in this

incident and then she was taken to the hospital of Dr. Shushil

Kumar Singh at Khagaul. During the course of her medical

treatment at the said hospital, other accused persons (who came

to be acquitted) started threatening her to disclose that she

sustained burns because of her own fault or else poisonous

injection shall be administered to her. After her medical

treatment for few days at the hospital of Dr. Shushil Kumar

Singh P.W.4, Lalita Devi came to be discharged and was taken

to her parental house by her parental relatives. According to the

prosecution case, nobody from her matrimonial side came to

visit her during her stay at her parental house. As her condition

deteriorated, her brother Binod Kumar P.W.3 got her admitted to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

the P.M.C.H. Hospital, Patna, on 05.03.1993. Nobody from her

matrimonial side attended her in that hospital. According to the

prosecution case, appellant/convicted accused Navlakho Devi

and Madan Prasad (acquitted accused) used to threaten Lalita

Devi to bring gold Nathuni (nose ring) with a consequential

threat that on failure she would not be allowed to stay in her

matrimonial house.

(c). During her medical treatment at the P.M.C.H.

Hospital, Patna, Court Witness No.1 Rajnath Singh, a Police

Officer from Pirbahore Police Station, recorded statement of

Lalita Devi (since deceased) at the P.M.C.H. Hospital, Patna, on

13.03.1993 in presence of her brother P.W.3 Binod Kumar and

on the basis of that statement, Crime No.21 of 1993 came to be

registered against accused persons on 14.03.1993. Ultimately,

during her medical treatment, Lalita Devi wife of Madan Prasad

succumbed to burn injuries and P.W.6 Dr. Awadheshwari Prasad

Narain Deo conducted autopsy on the dead body of Lalita Devi

on 28.03.1993 at the P.M.C.H. Hospital, Patna, and concluded

that she died due to antimortem burn injuries.

(d). Routine investigation followed. Statement of

the witnesses came to be recorded and ultimately the

Investigating Officer had filed charge-sheet against Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

appellant/accused no.1 Navlakho Devi and other accused

persons for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the

Indian Penal Code.

(e). On committal, the learned trial court framed the

charges for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the

Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. They pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution

has examined two neighbourers of the deceased Lalita Devi

namely P.W.1 Laxman Das and P.W.2 Dev Prasad Pandit.

Brother of Lalita Devi namely Binod Kumar came to be

examined as P.W.3. Dr. Shushil Kumar Singh of Khagaul who

gave medical treatment to Lalita Devi came to be examined as

P.W.4. The Investigating Officer Ranjeet Prasad Sinha is

examined as P.W.5. Autopsy Surgeon Awadheshwari Prasad

Narain Deo of the P.M.C.H. Hospital, Patna, is examined as

P.W.6.

4. Defence of the accused persons was that of total

denial. They examined Lalmani-mother of deceased Lalita Devi

as D.W.1 and their own neighbourer Lalan Kumar as D.W.2.

5. The learned trial court then summoned Rajnath

Singh, the Police Officer, who recorded dying declaration of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

deceased Lalita Devi at the P.M.C.H. Hospital, Patna, on

13.03.1993 which was treated as the F.I.R. of the subject case

and this witness is examined as C.W.1.

6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court

was pleased to convict appellant Navlakho Devi of the offence

punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code by

holding that she is guilty of the offence causing dowry death of

her daughter-in-law Lalita Devi. Rest of the accused persons

including husband came to be acquitted. Hence this appeal by

the mother-in-law.

7. We heard Sri Prince Kumar Mishra, learned

Advocate, who is appointed to represent the appellant at the cost

of the State. By taking us through the entire records and

proceeding, he argued that there is no evidence to conclude that

the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the

appellant/convicted accused for or on account of dowry soon

before her death. He argued that even mother of the deceased

has supported the defence so also the neighbourers from both

sides. On the contrary, Dr. Jha, the learned Prosecutor

appearing for the State vehemently opposed the appeal by

contending that the prosecution has brought on record the

cogent evidence to establish that a married woman died due to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

burn injuries and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment

by the appellant soon before her death on account of demand of

gold Nathuni.

8. We have considered the submissions so advanced

and also perused the records and proceedings.

9. As the appellant is charged for the offence

punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, let us

put on record ingredients of the said offence, proof of which is

necessary for recording conviction. The prosecution, in such

offence is obliged to prove that : (a) the death of a woman was

caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than

under normal circumstances; (b) such death should have

occurred within 7 years of her marriage; (c) the deceased was

subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any

relative of her husband; (d) such cruelty or harassment should

be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (e) to

such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been

subjected soon before her death.

10. Let us scrutinize evidence of the prosecution

witnesses in order to ascertain whether the prosecution has

established all these ingredients through its evidence in order to

sustain the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

11. P.W.4 Dr. Shushil Kumar Singh in his statement

before the court has stated that he is running a hospital named

"Sushil Nursing Home" at Khagaul and on 16.02.1993, patient

Lalita Devi came to be admitted at his hospital. As per his

version, relatives from both sides of patient Lalita Devi were

with her at the hospital. P.W.4 Dr. Shushil Kumar Singh further

stated that the patient informed him that as burning lamp fell on

her person she sustained burn injuries and at that time she was

wearing synthetic Saree. P.W.4 Dr. Sushil Kumar Singh further

testified that with passage of time, medical condition of Lalita

Devi improved and she was in a position to take her own care.

According to Dr. Shushil Kumar Singh then there was dacoity at

his house and he became busy. Resultantly, Lalita Devi came to

be discharged. This Medical Doctor further opined that injuries

noted by him on person of Lalita Devi were caused to her

because of accidental fire.

12. Lalita Devi was being treated at the P.M.C.H.

Hospital thereafter and at that hospital she succumbed to the

burn injuries. Post-mortem examination on her dead body was

conducted on 28.03.1993 at the said hospital by P.W.6 Dr.

Awadheshari Prasad Narain Deo. This Medical Officer opined Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

that Lalita Devi died because of antimortem burn injuries and

his version is consistent with the report of post-mortem

examination Ext.4. With this evidence on record we hold that

the prosecution has established the fact that Lalita Devi, a

married woman, died because of burns sustained by her at her

matrimonial house in the night intervening 15.02.1993 and

16.02.1993.

13. Now let us examine whether evidence on record

established that soon before her death she was subjected to

cruelty or harassment by the appellant for or in connection with

demand of dowry.

14. To establish dowry death of Lalita Devi, the

prosecution has examined P.W.1 Laxman Das and P.W.2 Dev

Prasad who happen to be the neighbourers residing in the

vicinity of matrimonial house of Lalita Devi. However, both

these witnesses are unanimously stating that Lalita Devi was

having good relations with her in-laws. P.W.1 Laxman Das has

stated that he rushed to the spot soon after sustaining injuries by

Lalita Devi and found that she sustained burn injuries because

of fall of kerosene lamp. He further testified that there was no

quarrel between Lalita Devi and her mother-in-law i.e.

appellant/convicted accused. In cross examination, this witness Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

testified that deceased Lalita Devi was having good relations

with her matrimonial relatives who took her urgently to the

hospital for medical treatment. Similar is the version of P.W.2

Dev Prasad. In addition, this witness has stated that Lalita Devi

married son of the appellant in the year 1990 and there was no

quarrel between appellant and deceased Lalita Devi. Thus,

evidence of both these witnesses is not depicting any cruelty or

harassment to the deceased by appellant-mother-in-law.

15. P.W.3 Binod Kumar is brother of deceased Lalita

Devi. His version is only to the effect that he had put his

signature on statement of Lalita Devi (Ext.1) which was treated

as the First Information Report. This witness who happens to be

close relative of the deceased from the parental side has not

spoken about any cruel treatment or harassment by the appellant

to his sister-deceased Lalita Devi.

16. Rest of the witnesses examined by the

prosecution are the doctors and the Investigating Officer whose

evidence is not reflecting anything to infer about cruel treatment

to the deceased by the appellant.

17. The defence has examined non else than mother

of the deceased Lalita Devi as D.W.1. She is Lalmani. This

mother of the deceased has stated that when she received Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

information about sustaining burns from the brother-in-law of

Lalita Devi, with him she went to the hospital of P.W.4 Dr.

Shushil Kumar Singh. At that hospital, Lalita Devi was under

medical treatment for 15 days. D.W.1 Lalmani testified that

then she took her daughter Lalita Devi to her house and

admitted her to P.M.C.H. Hospital on 05.03.1993. As per her

information, most of the expenses on treatment of Lalita Devi

were incurred by her in-laws. D.W.1 vouched that her daughter

was not making any complaint against her in-laws and her in-

laws were not demanding anything including gold Nathuni from

her. Thus, version of mother of the deceased is totally

demolishing the case of the prosecution against the accused.

18. Another witness examined by the defence is

D.W.2 Lalan Kumar who happens to be neighbour of parents of

the deceased. This neighbour has deposed that deceased Lalita

Devi was having good relations with her in-laws and there was

no demand of dowry by in-laws of the deceased at any point of

time. Thus another blow is dealt on the prosecution case by this

witness.

19. The learned trial court then summoned Rajnath

Singh, a police official, as court witness. This witness has

recorded the F.I.R. in the form of the statement of deceased Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

Lalita Devi (Ext.1) on 13.03.1993 at the P.M.C.H. Hospital,

Patna. However, the version of the deceased reflected from the

F.I.R. is not substantiated or corroborated by any of the

witnesses examined by the prosecution and as such this dying

declaration of the deceased is of no consequence. On the

contrary, it is contradicted by the mother of declarant and

unsupported by her brother.

20. In the result, we are unable to endorse the

conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned

trial court and therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed and is

allowed in the following terms.

                        (I).    The appeal is allowed.

                       (II). The impugned Judgment and Order of

         conviction       and      resultant       sentence   imposed   on   the

appellant/accused no.1 Navlakho Devi in respect of the offence

punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Patna, in

Sessions Trial No.205 of 1994 on 18 th April, 1995 is quashed

and set aside.

(III). Appellant/accused no.1 Navlakho Devi is

acquitted of the offence alleged against her. She be set at librty Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 1995 dt.24-02-2022

forthwith. Fine if any paid by her be refunded to her.

21. We record our appreciation for strenuous efforts

taken by Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra the learned Advocate

appointed to represent the appellant at the cost of the State, in

assisting us for arriving at the correct conclusion in the matter.

We quantify the fees payable to him at Rs.5000/- and direct the

High Court Legal Services Authority to pay the said amount to

Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, the learned appointed Advocate.

(A. M. Badar, J)

( Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)

P.S./-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                23.02.2022
Uploading Date          24.02.2022
Transmission Date       24.02.2022