Patna High Court
Ashok Poddar And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(43)BLJR774, I(1997)DMC105
Author: O.N. Asthana
Bench: O.N. Asthana
JUDGMENT O.N. Asthana, J.
1. This is the criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 21st September, 1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 198 of 1992 where the learned Sessions Judge held all these three accused-appellants guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment.
2. The informant Ram Prasad Poddar (father of his young married daughter Sudama Devi) gave a long written report at the Police Station on 25th May, 1992 with me allegation that he married his daughter Sudama Devi with accused-appellant, Ashok Poddar in the month of Asardh of the year 1991 and he gave Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) cash and ornaments worth Rs. 5,00()/- (five thousand) by way of dowry in the marriage of his daughter Sudama Devi and he promised to pay a balance sum of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) to the son-in-law and his father later on. This accused-appellant, Ashok Poddar and Vijay Poddar started making a demand of wrist watch, bicycle, besides rupees two thousand. Further the son-in-law Ashok Poddar started making a demand of rupees five thousand for starting his new business for the livelihood.
3. It has been alleged further in the First Information Report that after some time this accused-appellant, Ashok Poddar came to his house and informed that Sudama Devi has pain in her abdomen and he came to the house of his son-in-law, where his daughter complained that she was being beaten and was being tortured by her husband and mother-in-law. He brought his daughter to her parent's house, and after some time Ashok Poddar came and snatched the earrings of Sudama Devi. Later on in February, 1992 Ashok Poddar came to his house and he gave a sum of rupees one thousand cash to him, and he took his wife Sudama Devi to his village home. Again Ashok Poddar started assaulting and torturing his daughter Sudama Devi. On 25.5.1992 at about 7.30 a.m. Salik Poddar came to his village android that Sudama Devi was burnt to death. He came to the house of his son-in-law and he came to know from the persons of the locality that his daughter Sudama Devi was burnt to death by these accused-appellants.
4. The suggestion of the accused-appellants is that Smt. Sudama Devi was cooking the evening meals on kerosene stove inside the house and she accidently caught fire from the stove and she died of the burns.
5. Learned Trial Judge arrived at the findings that before her death Smt. Sudama Devi was being subjected to cruelty and torture by these accused-appellants and as Smt. Sudama Devi died an unnatural death, the accused-appellants were guilty for the offence Under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned Advocate for the appellants contended that the prosecution evidence shows that there are at least 34 houses (and families) in this village locality and none has come forward to support the prosecution version and that Salik Poddar who gave the information first to Ram Prasad Poddar (father of the deceased) too has not been examined by me prosecution.
7. The witnesses of fact supporting the prosecution evidence are Ram Prasad Poddar, informant (P.W.ll) and his brother, Pabrit Poddar (P.W.I 0).
8. Pabrit Poddar (P.W.10) has stated in cross-examination that he did not go to the residence of these accused-appellants and that his brother did not pay rupees one thousand in his presence. This witness Pabrit Poddar, P.W.10 told in paragraph 8 of his statement that in the morning of 25th May, 1992 Salik Poddar came to his village and told him that Sudama Devi has called them at her father-in-law's house, and he and his elder brother Ram Prasad Poddar left the village to meet Sudama, but they found her lying dead due to burn injuries. Obviously such statement of Pabrit Poddar cannot be taken to be a piece of evidence to show that Sudama Devi was being tortured because her father did not give adequate dowry (said to be demanded by the accused-appellant).
9. A letter, Exhibit-2 has been produced from the side of the prosecution. It is a writing on plain paper. Relating to its alleged envelope Pabrit Poddar, P.W.10 has stated that the envelope might be lying at his house and the Investigating Officer did not like to collect the envelope. Ram Prasad Poddar, P.W.I 1 has stated that the envelope of this letter was also given to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, Sri A.K. Brahmchari had stated on oath that no envelope was shown to him. Thus, it is very doubtful, if any such letter was posted by the accused Ashok Poddar. This letter, Exhibit-2 is not addressed to the father-in-law Ram Prasad Poddar. The address at the top is Pyare Bhaiya. The Counsel for the appellants suggested rightly that this letter might be concoction on the part of the family members of the deceased girl.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant rightly put the emphasis that this letter, Exhibit-2 cannot be read in evidence against the accused-appellants as this letter has not been put to the accused Ashok Poddar while his statement was recorded Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. It is found that no such question was put to the accused Ashok Poddar, accordingly this letter, Exhibit-2 cannot be read as a piece of evidence submitted from the side of the prosecution.
11. Mr. Ashok KumarChatterjee.P.W.12 who performed the post-mortem, has stated that he found some kerosene smell in scalp hairs only. This might be due to the fact Sudama Devi would behaving loose hair and she was lowering her head on the kerosene stove.
12. The depositions of the witness of the neighbourhood namely, Kaushalya Devi, P.W.I, Chameli Devi P.W.2, Mahadeo Poddar P.W.7, Manju Devi P.W.8 and Geeta Devi P.W.9 show that the relation between Sudama Devi and her husband Ashok Poddar were cordial and that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Sudama Devi who were living in a separate house at some distance too loved their daughter-in-law Sudama Devi. Kaushalya Devi, P.W.I and Manju Devi P.W.8 have also stated on oath that they have never seen Ashok Poddar chastising or beating his wife Sudama Devi.
13. Kaushalya Devi P.W.I and Manju Devi P.W. 8 have stated on oath that the door of the house (room) was closed from inside and the thatched roof was burning and when the door was broken a kerosene stove was burning and Sudama was lying in burnt condition and anguishing in pain.
14. Thus there is more probability that Sudama Devi died due to accidental burns caused from the burning stove, when she was preparing her evening meals.
15. Undisputedly, the accused-appellants2 & 3 (father-in-law and mother-in-law) were living in a separate house. The deposition of Kaushalya Devi, P.W.I and Chameli Devi, P.W. 2 shows that Ashok Poddar and his father Vijay Poddar had gone to the market of the neighbouring locality in the noon hours and these male members happened to return home in the evening hours when Sudama had already caught fire from the stove and was burnt.
16. Thus the learned Counsel for the appellants urged rightly that the evidence on record shows more man mere probability that Smt. Sudama Devi got burnt from the kerosene stove accidently when she was cooking her evening meals.
17. Accordingly the accused-appellants are found not guilty for the commission of offence punishable Under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
18. This appeal is hereby allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court dated 21/27.9.1994 awarding the conviction is hereby set aside.
19. It appears that the accused-appellants are in jail. The office of this Court shall be sending the order for the release of the accused-appellants to be set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case.