Patna High Court
Sanjay Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2017
Author: Vinod Kumar Sinha
Bench: Vinod Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.385 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -13 Year- 2011 Thana -PIPRIYA SAHAYAK District- LAKHISARAI
===========================================================
Sanjay Singh S/O Shiv Balak Singh Resident Of Village Walipur, P.S. Piparia
District Lakhisarai
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Z.Hoda, A.P.P.
For the Informant/s : Mr. Bikramdeo Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: -05-2017
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 11.04.2013 passed by Sri Vishwanath Prasad, Adhoc
Additional District & Sessions Judge-IInd, Lakhisarai in Sessions
Trial No.03 of 2012 arising out of Piparia P.S.Case No.13 of
2011/G.R.No.431 of 2011, by which the sole appellant has been
convicted under Section 304(B) and 201 of the Indian penal Code
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years under Section 304(B) of
the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three years under Section 201 of
the Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default, imprisonment for six months. The learned
Trial court also directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017
2/22
2. The prosecution story in short is that P.W.6 (Mohan Rai)
the brother of the deceased lodged a written report before the Officer
In-charge of Piparia Police Station on 08.05.2011, stating inter alia
that three years prior, his sister (Shobha Kumari) was married to the
appellant and at the time of her marriage, he had given gift according
to his ability, however, the appellant, his father, mother, sister and
other accused persons were demanding Freeze, T.V. Washing
Machine and Cash, for that they used to torture and assault her, which
was informed by the deceased to them through mobile and he was not
allowed to meet his sister by the family members of in-laws of the
deceased. On 08.05.2011 at 06:00 A.M. he got information through
his brother-in-law (Mukesh Kumar) that appellant and his family
members are taking his sister somewhere else on the pretext of her
treatment and then he came to village Balipur and found the door of
the house of the appellant locked and came to know from the villagers
that they have taken the deceased at Lakhisarai for her treatment.
Then he came to Lakhisarai and searched out his sister in the hospital
but not traced out. In the written report, it has been stated that the
accused persons appears to have killed his sister and his dead-body
has been disappeared.
3. On the basis of written report of P.W.6, Piparia P.S.Case
No.13 of 2011 was instituted and the police after investigation
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017
3/22
submitted charge-sheet against the appellant as also Bhushan Singh
under Section 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, accordingly,
the cognizance was taken up. After commitment of the case to the
Court of Sessions, the case came to be tried by Adhoc Addl. District
& Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai.
4. Prosecution has examined altogether 08 witnesses and they
are P.W.1- Mukesh Kumar, P.W.2- Mahesh Singh, P.W.3- Sadanand
Singh, P.W.4- Arjun Singh, P.W.5-Meena Devi, P.W.6 - Mohan Rai
(informant), P.W.7- Sri R.C. Ram (I.O. of the Case) and P.W.8-
Atul Kumar Malik (Doctor).
5. Prosecution has further proved following documents in
support of its case and they are Ext.1- the signature on the Fardbeyan,
Ext.1/1- signature on the post-mortem report, Ext.2- Formal F.I.R.,
Ext.3- Inquest report, Ext.4-Requisition for examination by Forensic
Science Laboratory and Ext.5 report of Forensic Science Laboratory.
6. Defence of the appellant is one of total denial and of false
implication. Further, the case of defence is that the deceased died due
to illness during her treatment and in support of its case, the defence
has also examined two witnesses, D.W.1- Sanjay Kumar Singh and
D.W.2- Ram Padarath Singh.
7. Apart from the above, oral evidence, following documents
have been brought on record by defence as Ext.-A- Service report in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017
4/22
the hand writing and signature of Pratima Singh, Ext.-B- Prescription
of Dr. K.K.Singh, Ext. B/1- signature of Dr. K.K. Singh on another
prescription, Ext. C - certificate regarding return of the articles given
as dowry.
8. Main ground for assailing the judgment is that prosecution
story of dowry death of deceased was false and concocted and as a
matter of fact, she fell ill, hence treated. It is also submitted that
during treatment, she died and aforesaid fact will appear from the
evidence of D.W.1 and Ext. 'B' & 'B/1'. It is also argued that as she
died during the course of treatment, her dead-body was cremated. It is
further argued that falsity of the prosecution case will also appear
from the fact that neither the father nor mother of the deceased has
come forward to depose and only brother of the deceased has come at
the instance of P.W.1, who is relative of the brother of the deceased.
It is also argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this
case and even there is no cogent and reliable evidence available in
support of demand of dowry or torture on that pretext to the deceased.
It is also submitted that the post mortem report does not show the
cause of death, as such the prosecution in the present case has not
been able to establish its case under Section 304(B) of the Indian
Penal Code against the appellant, hence conviction and sentence of
the appellant under Section 304(B) & 201 of the IPC is not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017
5/22
sustainable in the eye of law.
9. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that
there are cogent and reliable evidences available on the record
showing that there was demand of dowry such as demand of T.V.,
Freeze and other articles and earlier a Motorcycle was also provided
to the appellant and further evidence is available on record to show
that the deceased was subjected to cruelty with respect to their
aforesaid demand. It has also been submitted that there are ample
evidence available on the record including the villagers of the
appellant, which shows that the deceased was killed and her dead-
body was cremated in the hurried manner, as such, conviction of the
appellant under Section 304B as well as Section 201 of the Indian
Penal Code is just and proper.
10. P.W. 6 is the informant and the brother of the deceased of
this case. He deposed that the deceased was married with the
appellant in the year, 2008 and according to him, the date of
occurrence is 08.05.2011. The evidence of P.W.6 also discloses that
there was demand of T.V., Freeze and other articles by the accused
persons including the appellant and they had given a Motorcycle to
them. His evidence also discloses that when he got information that
her sister was killed, he came to the village and found door of the
house of the appellant closed and thereafter he came to know that she
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017
6/22
was taken to Lakhisarai. His evidence further discloses in Para 5 that
as the demand was not fulfilled, as such her sister was tortured. He, in
his chief, categorically stated that the dead-body of his sister was
recovered from the bank of river Ganga at Marachi at the instance of
Bhushan Singh. This witness has been cross-examined at length but
from the whole cross examination, it appears that he has not been
cross examined so far evidence on demand as well as her sister being
subjected to cruelty is concerned. It is also clear from the evidence of
this witness that his sister came to unnatural death within seven years
of her marriage. A suggestion has been given to this witness in para
15 and 16 that his sister was treated by Dr. J.P. Sharma and thereafter,
she died and a suggestion has also been given that when condition of
his sister deteriorated, she was taken by the father of the appellant but
she died in the way and thereafter her dead-body was taken to
Marachi where cremation of her dead body was performed but this
witness has denied all the aforesaid suggestions. In para 16 of his
cross examination, he has stated that there was demand of freeze,
washing machine etc. and after a panchayati, he gave a motorcycle
and then her 'bidai' was done and she went to her 'sasural' on
21.6.2010. His evidence also shows that he used to talk to the deceased on Mobile. A suggestion has also been given to this witness that he had gone to the Doctor but he has denied the suggestion and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 7/22 stated that had he been gone there, he would have known about the death of the deceased. Further suggestion has been given to this witness in Para 34 that the dead-body was recovered from Marachi is not of the deceased. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, it appears that apart from some minor discrepancies from his earlier written statement, there is nothing important to discredit the evidence of this witness.
11. Apart from that P.W.1 is brother-in-law in relation to the deceased and happens to be co-villager of the appellant. He has stated that on 8.5.2011, he came to know that her sister-in-law (deceased) has been killed and then came to the house of the appellant where he was asked to bring a vehicle as she is not well. He then went to bring a vehicle and returned with a vehicle but in the meantime, Shiv Balak Singh, father of the appellant carried away the dead body of the deceased on an another vehicle. This witness has also stated in para 2 that the reason behind the occurrence is the demand of T.V., Freeze etc. His evidence further shows that the dead-body was recovered on the next day near the bank of River Ganga. This witness has been cross examined and his evidence discloses that when the deceased came to her 'Maike', she disclosed about torture and demand of dowry. He has further stated that on 21.6.2010, she came to her 'Sasural' from 'Maike'. He has also stated that panchayati was held Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 8/22 with respect to torture due to demand but nothing was made in writing. In his cross examination in Para 9, he has stated that deceased was not suffering from any disease. In his entire cross examination, several other suggestions have also been given including suggestion that she died during her treatment but he has denied the aforesaid all the suggestions and further suggestion has been given that she was taken to Lakhisarai for her treatment, which suggestion has also been denied by this witness.
12. P.W.2 is also the villager of the appellant has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief and stated that he heard about the death of the deceased and then he went to the house of Shiv Balak Singh, father of the appellant, he saw the accused persons including the appellant taking dead-body of the deceased on a Jeep. Even in this cross examination, he has asserted that he had seen from his own eyes going by Jeep. This witness has also stated in para 5 of the cross examination that there is no question of identifying them as he himself saw them going.
13. P.W.3 has also stated that he heard 'hulla' that the accused persons have killed the deceased and carried away on Jeep. He has also stated that the dead-body was recovered at Marachi on next day. This witness has also stated that she was killed due to demand of dowry including T.V., Godrej etc. This witness has stated Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 9/22 that at about 5:00 - 5:30 A.M. he heard 'hulla'. A suggestion has been given to him that he is uncle (phupha) of the deceased but he has denied the same. This witness has further stated in his cross examination that her marriage was solemnised five years ago. A suggestion has been given to him that the dead-body recovered was not of the deceased, which he has denied. Even in his cross examination in para 11, he has stated that he had himself heard about demand from the appellant and his family members.
14. P.W.4 also is the co-villager of appellant. This witness has stated that on hearing hulla that the deceased has been killed, he with others came to the house of the appellant. He was asked to bring a Jeep and he went to bring the same but in the meantime, dead body was carried away on another Jeep. Next day, police recovered the dead body from Marachi. In cross examination, a suggestion has been to this witness that deceased was not well and she was taken for her treatment but he has denied the same. This witness has also denied suggestion that father of the appellant had asked P.W.6 to stay and cremate the dead-body but he did not stay there. A suggestion has also been given to this witness that he has lodged a case with an ulterior motive to extract money from the appellant and their family members to which he has denied.
15. P.W.5 (Meera Devi) is wife of P.W.1 and she has also Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 10/22 supported the prosecution story in her examination-in-chief. She has also stated in para 4 that her sister was not allowed to meet P.W.6. She has also stated that when the dead-body was taken by the appellant, she had seen from her roof (kotha). Even in her cross examination, there was nothing to doubt about her credibility.
16. On consideration of the evidences, as discussed above, it appears that there are consistent evidence available on the record showing that from before, the accused persons including the appellant were demanding Freeze, Washing Machine etc. from her and she had disclosed the same to the witnesses.
17. From the evidence, it also appears that in the year, 2010, a Motorcycle was given to the appellant and then 'bidai' of the deceased was performed. It is also clear from the evidence that that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and she was not ever permitted to meet with her brother.
18. In this case P.W.7 is the I.O. and from his evidence, it appears that during investigation when he went to place of occurrence, he found the house of appellant closed and even room of the deceased was locked. He also visited the place of creation, recovered a half burn dead body and sent the dead-body for post- mortem to Munger, which was sent to Bhagalpur for examination of F.S.L. In para 13 of his cross examination, he has stated that half-burn Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 11/22 dead-body of the deceased, Shobha was sent to Bhagalpur for F.S.L. examination.
19. P.W.8 had conducted the post-mortem of the dead body and he has stated that on 26.6.2011 he was posted as Head of the Department of F.M.T. Department, J.L.M.C., Bhagalpur He further stated that a wooden box said to contain exhibits of the case received in the department on 13.5.2011 and on opening the box, it was found highly charred incomplete remains of dead body. After preliminary examination, the exhibits were subjected to repeated processing and drying for final examination. He further deposed that the skull, hip bones, saerum were studied for sex determination. For determination of age, his bones, saerum, mandible and skull were studied .
This witness has further deposed as about injuries that the soft tissues of neck were completely burnt. No ante-mortem injury was found in available bones however, soft tissues and some bones shows post mortem burn as there was no vital reaction.
This witness has finally recorded his opinion as the exhibits sent for medico legal expert examination are of a female aged in between 25 to 30 years. It is not possible to determine cause of the death of the deceased by examination of available exhibits and considering the state of tissues and ligament, the deceased might have died 7 days to 15 days prior to receipt of the deceased in the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 12/22 department 13.5.2011. He has further proved his report as Ext.5.
However, from his cross examination, it appears that the cause of death could not be ascertained and it was not possible to identify the dead-body of the deceased.
20. Two witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the defence, out of which, D.W.1 (Sanjay Kumar Singh) has claimed to be the Compounder of Dr. K.K.Singh and he has proved the writing of Dr. K.K.Singh on the back of the summon mentioning that his wife is unable to move as Ext. A. He has further proved two prescription dated 2.3.2011 and 24.3.2011 written by Dr. K.K.Singh relating to treatment of the deceased as Ext. B and B/1. He has further stated in Para 3 that Dr. K.K.Singh is suffering from paralysis and is unable to move. In his cross examination, he stated that he was the compounder in the clinic of Dr. K.K.Singh from the year, 2002 to 2012 (January) but has got no paper nor any licence to be the compounder of Dr. K.K.Singh.
21. D.W.2 has stated that on 30.10.2011 (after the incident) he was sitting at the Darbaza of Rajendra Singh, who was the Sarpanch of Panchayat and other people of the village were also present. Then Bhaso Rai and Mohan Rai (P.W.6) came there and requested the Sarpanch to get the articles returned to him as his daughter died due to illness and the case will be compromised.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 13/22
22. From the evidences discussed above, it appears that the case of the defence is that she died due to illness. Further stand of defence is that the deceased was taken to Lakhisarai for treatment but according to D.W.1 suggestions have been put to P.Ws. by defence that she was treated by Dr. K.K.Singh, Patna It appears that inconsistent suggestions have been put to P.Ws. in this regard. Some P.Ws. have been suggested that the deceased was treated by Dr.J.P.Sharma at Lakhisarai whereas D.W.1 has come with evidence that she was treated by Dr. K.K.Singh at Patna. The appellant himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has specifically stated that she died on way while she was being taken for her treatment.
23. On plain reading of Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 313 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, it appears that in order to prove the charges under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients :
i. Death of woman occurred within seven years of marriage, (ii) There was demand of dowry, (iii) she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and (iv) Death was otherwise than under normal circumstances.
24. Further, Section 113 B of the Evidence Act has a proximate nexus with Section 304B of the Indian Pena Code, which reads as follows : -
"Section 113B. Presumption as to dowry death.-- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 14/22 shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code.
25. I have discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties in detail above, from which it is quite clear that the deceased was married to the appellant in the year, 2008 and her death came on 8.5.2011. P.W.6 who is brother of the deceased has categorically stated that after the marriage, demand of T.V., Washing Machine, Freeze etc. made by the appellant and his evidence also discloses that on 21.6..2010, when the deceased was to return to her 'Sasural' on 'Bidai', the demand as above was put forward and then a panchayati was held to fulfil the demand and a Motorcycle was given to the appellant. The evidence of witness also discloses that the accused persons used to assault and torture the deceased on the pretext of demand and even when P.W.6 went to her 'Sasural', he was not allowed to meet her.
26. On careful scrutiny of the evidence, I find that the defence has not been able to dislodge the evidence of P.W.6 in the cross examination. P.W.1 happens to be brother-in-law of P.W. and the co-villager of the appellant. He has fully supported the factum of the demand of dowry and torture. P.W.5 is the sister of P.W. 6 as well Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 15/22 as of the deceased and she has also supported the version of P.W.6.
27. From the above, it appears that there are cogent and reliable evidence available to show that there was demand of dowry on the part of the appellant and for that he used to torture and harass the deceased.
28. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in this case neither father nor mother of the deceased has been examined and this itself indicates that there is no truth in the prosecution version that is why they did not choose to appear before the court. It is truth that the parents of the deceased have not come forward to depose in the court, however, P.W.6 is the own brother and P.W.5 is the cousin sister and P.W.1 & 5 are cousin brother-in-law and cousin sister of the deceased and they have been examined and their evidences are consistent, cogent and reliable. Apart from that the evidence of P.W.3 also supports the allegation of demand as well as torture. His evidence also shows that he had talks with the deceased, as such he has come to depose in this case. The above consistent cogent and reliable evidence available on the record, can not be brushed aside on the ground that parents of the deceased had not been examined.
29. It is not in dispute that the deceased came to her death in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 16/22 the year, 2011 probably on 8.5.2011 and at that time she was residing at her 'Sasural'. In this regard, the prosecution version as per written report of P.W.6 is that on 8.5.2011 at about 6.00 A.M., he learnt from P.W.1 that his sister has been carried away somewhere on the pretext of treatment and then he came to her sasural and found the house of the appellant closed. He searched out her sister but not traced out and then he lodged a report in the police station .
30. P.W.6 in regard to the above fact has stated in para 6 that he learnt from P.W.1 that his sister has been killed and her dead body has been taken away and then he went there and none of the family members of the appellants was found in the house and he searched his sister but not traced out and then he lodged a case in the police station. He further stated in para 7 that next day the dead body of his sister was recovered from the Marachi Ganga Ghat. In this regard, P.W.1 has also stated in the in the morning on 8.1.2011, he learnt that the deceased has been killed and he has come along with others to the house of the appellant and father of the appellant told that the deceased is suffering form illness then he went to bring vehicle and returned with a vehicle but in the meantime, the accused carried away the deceased on another vehicle. Next day the dead body of the deceased was recovered from Marachi Ganga Ghat. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, who are villagers of the appellant have also corroborated the evidence Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 17/22 of P.W.1 in this evidence.
31. In this context, P.W. 8, who is the I.O. of the case has stated that on 8.5.2011 he took charge of the investigation of the case. He visited place of occurrence that is hosue of the appellant and inspected the same. From his evidence, it appears that he found the house locked and one of the family members were present there. His evidence further disclose in para 5 that he inspected the cremated place of the deceased, which is at Marachi Gangan Ghat situated at the bank of Ganga. He further stated that a half burnt dead body of the deceased was recovered from Marachi Ganga Ghat and he prepared an inquest report and has also proved it as Exhibit 3. He further disclosed in para 13 of his cross examination that the dead body was sent to Munger for post mortem and thereafter it was sent to Bhagalpur for F.S.L. examination. He has also stated that he sent half burnt dead body of the deceased to Bhagalpur and obtained its examination report.
32. Here defence has put a suggestion to this witness that the said half burn dead body was not of the deceased which was sent to Bhagalpur for examination by the F.S.L. and obtained its examination report, which has been denied by him. In para 22 of his cross examination, this witness on being asked has categorically stated that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 18/22 he recovered the dead body of Sobha on 9.5.2011 at 9.30 A.M.
33. On the basis of above evidence, it can be presumed that the death of the deceased was not normal and her dead body was cremated in hurried manner without being informed to her parents or other any other relative including P.W.6, who happens to be brother of the deceased. There is no evidence to show that any maternal family members of the deceased were present at the time of her cremation.
34. From the contents of the cross examination as also the statement of the co accused under Section 330 of Cr.P.C. it appears that the deceased died during the course of medical treatment. What kind of illness she was suffering, has not been disclosed by the defence. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Indian Evidence Act has stated that the deceased was under treatment and she was being treated at Patna and on the way she died and the medical report of Dr. K.K.Singh of Patna has also been placed and they are of dated 2.3.2011 and 24.3.2011 i.e. about two months before the date of occurrence i.e. 8.5.2011. The medical prescription shows that Dr. K.K.Singh is a consultant and Psychiatrist and some suggestion has been put to P.Ws that at the day of occurrence she was under treatment at Lakhisarai but no chit of paper in this regard Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 19/22 has been filed and proved. All these circumstances appearing on the record makes out the death of deceased as also the story of defence that she died during treatment, very doubtful and suspicious.
35. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact lies upon him. In this case when the deceased came to her death, she was in her 'sasural' i.e. at appellant's house. It is the claim of defence that she died in course of treatment. But no chit of paper of such treatment has been filed and proved. It has not been disclosed for what illness she was being treated. No doctor who treated the deceased has been examined. It is further established that there was demand of dowry since soon after her marriage and in the year, 2010 one of the demand was fulfilled. There is also sufficient cogent and reliable evidence available on record that she was subjected to torture in connection with said demand. It is also well established that the appellant and his family members cremated the deceased without informing her parents or police. All these indicate the conduct of the accused that he did so with sole object to conceal the real cause of death.
36. In view of the discussions as made above I see no illegally and perversity in the judgment and order dated 11.04.2013. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 20/22
37. As such conviction of appellant under Section 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Trial Court is upheld.
38. From perusal of the order dated 11.04.2013 passed by the learned trial court it appears that he has been sentenced R.I. for ten years under Section 304B and also R.I. for three years under Section 201 of the Indian penal Code and further fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default, imprisonment for six months.
39. It further appears that appellant is in custody in connection with this case for more than six years. It also appears that his age was assed at the time of delivery of judgment as 28 years as such he must be about 33 years now.
40. From perusal of the order passing sentence, it appears that the learned trial court has sentenced the appellant R.I. for ten years under Section 304(B) of the Indian Pena Code and R.I. for three years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and further fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default imprisonment for six months and it also appears that in this case the appellant was aged about 28 years at the time of delivery of judgment and he must be 32 years old at present.
41. Ends of justice may be served by considering the age of the appellant. If the sentence of R.I. for ten years under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code is modified to the extent of R.I. for Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 21/22 seven years and R.I. for three years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code shall remain intact.
42. So far order for fine of Rs.20,000/- against the appellant and in default imprisonment for six years is concerned, Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code prescribes for imposing of fine and in absence of any statutory provision imposing fine of Rs.20,000/- against the appellant does not appear to be proper.
43. While considering imposition of fine in a case of Arun Garg - Vrs. State of Punjab & Anr reported in (2004) 8 SCC 251 is concerned, the Court is not empowered to impose fine as punishment and it is one of few Sections in the Indian Penal Code where fine is not prescribed as a punishment.
Considering this aspect of the matter, so far order for fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default imprisonment for six months is concerned, it can not be sustained. Hence, the same is set aside.
44. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence as stated above.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 20.4.2017 Uploading Date Transmission Date
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.385 of 2013 dt.19-05-2017 22/22