Patna High Court
Ravi Shankar Agrawal And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 30 June, 2015
Author: V.N. Sinha
Bench: V.N. Sinha, Nilu Agrawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.100 of 1993
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -87 Year- 1987 Thana -TOWN District- MUZAFFARPUR
===========================================================
1. Ravi Shankar Agrawal, son of Dhabil Chandra Agrawal
2. Gita Devi, wife of Shri Dhabil Chandra Agrawal
Both residents of Mohalla Dhobia Galli, Saraiyaganj, P.S. Town, District
Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : None
For the State : Mr. A.K. Sinha, APP
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA)
Date: 30-06-2015
This appeal is directed against the judgment/ order
dated 16.02.1993, passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 133/89/ 13/91 whereunder
the two appellants i.e. the son, mother have been convicted for the
offence under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. Prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan of
Manju Sureka, daughter of Ram Ballabh Jalan of Mohalla Daldali
Bazar, P.S. Town Muzaffarpur recorded by Sri Kalika Nandan Singh
of Town Police Station on 30.03.1987 at 10.15 A.M. in the house of
the deceased Sarita Devi, wife of Ravi Shankar Agrawal, is that
deceased Sarita Devi is her own sister-in-law, who was married in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 1993 dt.30-06-2015
2/7
April, 1985 prior to her marriage held on 03.07.1986 and since then
she had connections with Sarita Devi and her family. Informant
further stated in the fardbeyan that she often visited her sister-in-law
and she informed her that her husband, mother-in-law are threatening
her to either leave or suffer torture, assassination. Sarita Devi also told
the informant that in her presence they are cordial but after she returns
they act otherwise. Informant further stated that Sarita Devi was not
even willing to come to her parent's house as her husband, mother-in-
law threatened her that if she goes to her parent's house they may
leave her. Because of such threat she never used to come to her
parent's house. Informant also stated that as and when Sarita Devi
wrote letters, the same was also not allowed to be posted by her
husband, mother-in-law. Informant further stated that on the date of
fardbeyan at about 7.00 A.M. Ravi Shankar Agrawal, husband of
Sarita Devi came to her house, told her that there is emergency in his
house and his mother is calling her whereafter informant asked his
brother Shyamanand Jalan to visit the house of Ravi Shankar
Agrawal, who went to his house but having found the door locked
from inside, which was not opened, returned back and informed the
informant that the door was locked from inside. Informant along with
her mother went to the house of Ravi Shankar Agrawal, saw the dead
body of her sister-in-law Sarita Devi in the court-yard covered, tied
with a cotton sheet. Her husband was standing by the side of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 1993 dt.30-06-2015
3/7
coffin and was preparing to take the dead body for cremation.
Informant asked Ravi Shankar Agrawal that she will not allow the
dead body to be taken for cremation unless the parents of the deceased
come to his house. In the meantime, police arrived, recorded her
fardbeyan and performed the inquest of the dead body. After
performing inquest dead body of Sarita Devi was sent for post mortem
to S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur which was received in the post mortem
house of S.K.M.C.H. on 30.03.1987 at 3.00 P.M. and post mortem
conducted on the same day at 3.30 P.M.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Officer-in-
Charge, Town Police Station, Muzaffarpur registered Town P.S. Case
No. 87/87 dated 30.03.1987 for the offences under Sections 498-A,
302/34 of the Penal Code against both the husband, mother-in-law of
the deceased. First Information Report was dispatched to the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur on 31.03.1987, which was
received by him on the same day. In the light of the fardbeyan, further
statement of the informant, police statement of the witnesses as also
the inquest, post mortem report and the report received from the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna Investigating Officer of the case
submitted charge-sheet finding the case true against both the husband,
mother-in-law of the deceased. On the basis of the charge-sheet
cognizance was taken and after supply of police papers case was
committed to the Court of Sessions. Sessions Court framed charges
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 1993 dt.30-06-2015
4/7
against both husband, mother-in-law of the deceased under order
dated 22.02.1991 to which both pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. In support of the charge prosecution examined as
many as eight witnesses, out of whom P.W. 1 Shyamanand Jalan is
the brother of the informant. P.W. 2 Sajjan Kumar Sureka is the
brother of the deceased, who was requested by the husband of the
deceased to come to his house at the time of occurrence on the pretext
that there was some emergency in his house and he is being called by
the mother-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 3 Shankar Lal Sureka is the
father of the deceased. P.W. 4 Manju Sureka is the informant, sister-
in-law of the deceased. P.W. 5 Dr. Manoranjan Kumar Srivastava at
the relevant time was Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine,
S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur and conducted autopsy on the dead body of
Sarita Devi. P.W. 6 Sunita is the sister of the informant. P.W. 7 Savitri
Jalan is the mother of the informant. P.W. 8 Kalika Nandan Singh is
the Investigating Officer of the case.
5. From the prosecution case, as set out in the
fardbeyan and the examination-in-chief of the informant, it appears
that the deceased Sarita Devi was married to Accused No. 1 in
April, 1985 and was being tortured by her husband, mother-in-law.
She used to complain about their ill-behaviour to the informant,
which fact is stated not only in the fardbeyan but also in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 1993 dt.30-06-2015
5/7
deposition of the informant and other witnesses. Sarita Devi,
however, never lodged any case of torture against the husband and
the in-laws. On the date of occurrence also as per fardbeyan
statement of P.W. 4 it is evident that husband of the deceased had
come to the house of the informant informing that she is being
called by her mother to attend the emergency in his house
whereafter P.W. 4 asked P.W. 1 Shyamanand Jalan to visit the
house of Accused No. 1, who went there but the house was locked
from inside, as such, he could not see the occurrence in the house
and returned back whereafter informant came to the house of
Accused No. 1 and saw the dead body of Sarita Devi lying in the
court-yard. Accused No. 1 was also standing next to the coffin and
making preparation for funeral. Informant proclaimed that she will
not allow Accused No. 1, the husband of the deceased to take the
dead body for cremation until parents of the deceased arrived,
meanwhile, Kalika Nandan Singh, Sub-Inspector Town Police
Station came to the house of Accused No. 1, recorded the fardbeyan
statement of P.W. 4 on 30.03.1987 at 10.15 A.M. and performed the
inquest proceeding on the dead body of Sarita Devi on the same day
at 10.45 A.M.
6. From perusal of the inquest report (Exhibit 5),
it, however, appears that the dead body was covered with a red Sari
and there were burn injuries on the person of the deceased. From the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 1993 dt.30-06-2015
6/7
post mortem report it, however, appears that the burn injuries found
on the face, front of chest, back of chest, upper extremity, both
thighs and some parts of the legs were post mortem. On opening and
dissection of the dead body no sign of asphyxia found on the trachea
or lungs. Viscera found congested and preserved. Evidence of two
months' pregnancy also found in the uterous. Autopsy surgeon
declined to record any opinion about the cause of death and stated in
the report that cause of death will be ascertained after chemical
analysis report is made available. Autopsy surgeon, however,
categorically stated in the report that the injuries were post mortem
burn injuries.
7. From the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, namely, the informant as also the other witnesses, it does
not appear as to how deceased suffered death. Prosecution witnesses
only speak about the torture made by the appellants to the deceased
but there is nothing on record to suggest that either the deceased or
the prosecution witnesses including the informant, to whom
deceased had been reporting about the torture as and when she
visited her, ever submitted any written report about such torture to
the police or even filed any complaint. In the circumstances, it may
not be safe to accept the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses
about the appellants subjecting the deceased to torture.
8. There is another aspect of the matter. From
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.100 of 1993 dt.30-06-2015
7/7
perusal of post mortem report there does not appear any cause of
death and viscera of the deceased having been found congested was
preserved. From the chemical analysis report of the viscera (Exhibit-
6), it also does not appear that the deceased was ever poisoned. The
evidence on record does not indicate any material on the basis of
which it can be concluded that the deceased suffered unnatural
death. In the light of the post mortem report the deceased having
suffered post mortem burn injuries, it was for the prosecution party
to have explained as to how such post mortem burn injuries were
caused on the person of the deceased.
9. Prosecution having not established that Sarita
Devi died unnatural death, it may be difficult for us to maintain the
conviction of both the appellants and both are granted benefit of
doubt. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Judgment/ order dated
16.02.1993is set aside. Appellants have been released on bail, as such, they are being directed to be relieved of the liability of their respective bail bonds.
(V.N. Sinha, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajesh/-
U T