Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Further the accused persons were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years each with fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants have to further undergo S.I. for 06 months each under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to the Cr. Appeals are that the written information was given on behalf of the informant Manoj Kumar with the Police Station Sadar Doranda, District- Ranchi with these allegations that his sister Guddi Kumari was married with Munna Yadav at village Tilath, P.S. Piro, District-Bhojpur on 18.05.2013 according to Hindu rites and rituals. On 07.03.2019 Munna Yadav after Gauna took his sister to Imli Khatal Hinoo where for two or three months they resided. The whole family of Munna Yadav including Munna Yadav himself, Pankaj Yadav, Govind Yadav, Vikash Yadav, Raju Yadav, Sheela Devi all began to torture his sister for demand of golden chain and motorcycle in additional dowry. For non-fulfilment of the same, his sister was physically and mentally tortured, complaint of the same was made by his sister to him over the phone. On 21.10.2014 at 7 O'clock Munna Yadav informed over the phone to him that his sister was ill. Having received this information, he told to Munna Yadav that he was coming in the morning. On 22.10.2014 at 4 O' clock he reached Ranchi to the house of Munna Yadav and asked about the whereabouts of his sister. Munna Yadav told him that his sister on account of the pain in her stomach died. He asked him to go away from his house and also began to assault him. It was told by him that his sister had been cremated. Accordingly, this F.I.R. was lodged which was registered on case crime No. 635 of 2014 under Sections 304B/201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against accused Munna Yadav, Pankaj Yadav, Govind Yadav, Vikash Yadav, Raju Yadav and Sheela Devi.

12. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the material on record.

13. In order to decide the legality and propriety of the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court-below, the prosecution evidence adduced on record is reproduced here-in-below:-

14. On behalf of prosecution in oral evidence examined five witnesses.

14.1 P.W.1 Virendra Rai in his Examination-in-chief says that the deceased Guddi Kumari was married with Munna Yadav in the year 2013. Gauna was performed after six months of the marriage and thereafter she was taken to her in-laws house. Guddi died on account of delivery. Police has not interrogated him. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined. In cross-examination this witness denied the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. given to the I.O. 14.2 P.W.2 Manu Kumar in his Examination-in-chief says that Guddi Kumari was his sister. She was married with Munna Yadav on 18.05.2013. Gauna was done on 07.03.2014. Thereafter she came to her in-laws house at Ranchi. After 2 to 4 months from the in-laws house his sister told over the phone that the vehicle and the golden chain was being demanded by Munna Yadav, Pankaj Yadav and Vikash Yadav and for the same reason she was being assaulted. Thereafter the daughter of the aunt of Munna Yadav told over the mobile phone that his sister was no more. On 22.10.2014 they reached to the in-laws house of his sister and came to know that she died on account of illness and the dead body was also cremated. The case was also filed against them with the Police Station concerned. In cross-examination this witness says that he had received the information from the daughter of the aunt of Munna Yadav over the phone. The occurrence did not take place in his presence. 14.3 P.W.3 Bimla Devi in her Examination-in-chief says that her daughter Guddi Kumari was married with Munna Yadav on 26.05.2013. After Gauna she was taken to her in-laws house. Her daughter over the mobile phone had told that her husband and the family member had tortured her for demand of a vehicle and sikri (gold chain). For non-fulfilment of the same she was tortured by them. Munna Yadav told her son Manoj Yadav over the mobile phone that Guddi had died. They reached immediately to the in-laws house of her daughter. Her dead-body was not found and it was told that on account of pain at the time of delivery she died. In cross-examination this witness says that they had made no complaint in regard to demand of dowry on being told by her daughter. Munna Yadav used to torture her daughter even in sohaban. The information was given to them and they did not come to the in-laws house of Guddi.

23. So far as the cause of death is concerned on this issue the Investigating Officer P.W.5 Chandrabhushan Singh has stated that he went to Dr. S. Prasad in regard to treatment of the deceased and it was told by the Doctor to him that deceased was not treated by him at his clinic. It is the prosecution case that the deceased was cremated without any information being given to the members of parental house of deceased. Consequently, neither the inquest nor the postmortem was possible to conduct. Therefore, the cause of death of the deceased is also not proved whether the death of deceased Guddi Kumari was unnatural. This plea is raised on behalf of prosecution since the deceased was cremated without prior information to the parental house of the deceased. In order to make the evidence disappear in regard to the cause of death the deceased was cremated by the accused persons.

26. Herein from the evidence on record neither there is cogent evidence in regard to demand of dowry nor the harassment or subjecting the deceased to cruelty for the said demand of dowry. Moreover, there is no evidence in regard to unnatural death of the deceased. The only grave suspicion has been created on behalf of prosecution that the deceased was cremated without giving any information to her parental house. As such contended that the death of victim was unnatural. The suspicion however grave & strong cannot take the place of proof. Certainly not informing to the members of the parental house of the deceased prior to cremation of the deceased gives rise to doubt; but the same cannot take the place of proof. 26.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court held in State through C.B.I. vrs. Mahender Singh Dahiya AIR 2011 SC 1017: