Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The prosecution had examined as many as ten witnesses during the trial and on consideration of the same, the impugned judgment was passed.

8. The defence of the appellants was that the deceased was suffering from asthma and paralysis and many other diseases for which she was regularly being treated by the doctors and she died of natural death and as such the doctors P.Ws.8 and 9, who together held the postmortem examination did not find any external or internal injury and were further of the opinion that there was no substantial reason appearing to them as regards the cause of death. In that view, P.Ws.8 and 9 preserved the viscera, but there is no report after the chemical analysis of viscera as well. It was contended that probability arises from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself that the deceased had died a natural death.

10. Sri Ajay Mishra, the learned A.P.P. was also of the view that the evidence on record was of such a nature and quality that it could be very difficult to support the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.

11. As may appear from the very initial prosecution version contained in Ext-2, the informant had got the information about the precarious condition of his daughter from one Rajesh, who was the son of Sampat Jain and was the resident of village-Bishanpur which was also the village of residence of the appellants. That Rajesh has not been examined. As such, there is no corroboration of the claim of the informant that he had indeed been informed by Rajesh, son of Sampat Jain that the condition of the deceased was quite precarious, as such, the informant should rush to Bishanpur. Even if in absence of the evidence of Rajesh what appears admitted is that there was some information and definitely from Rajesh that the condition of the deceased was very critical. However, what was the reason for the criticality of the condition of the deceased appears stated by different witnesses. P.W.1 has stated in paragraph-3 of his evidence that it was the stomach pain of the deceased due to which she was ill and, lastly, she died of it. Getting the information from Bishanpur he and the informant and others went there and learnt there also that the deceased had severe stomach pain and she died of that. P.W.1 has further stated that he went near the dead body which was lying on a bed on the floor of the house and some vomitted materials were also scattered around the place. However, there does not appear anything stated by P.W.1 that the condition of the dead body could have given an inkling that she had been murdered. As regards the demand for dowry, P.W.1 has stated in paragraph-6 that once the informant has pointed out to him that the accused persons had demanded some money, but whether it was paid or not he was not aware of it and there was no further demand as per P.W.1. P.W.2, who was related to the deceased on account of the informant being his nephew, has stated that he learnt that the deceased had died an unnatural death and thereby went to see the dead body but did not find anything unusual. In paragraph-2 he has stated that he had not given any statement to the police. What is found in the evidence of P.W.2 is of no evil either for the prosecution rather his evidence does not appear admissible. So far as P.W.3 Madan Agrawal is concerned he has stated that deceased Suman Agrawal was being tortured by her family members in connection with some demand and Rs.50,000/- was also given to the appellants and there had been some Panchayati also but in his cross-examination, the witness stated that the information which had been received by him and others was that the deceased was seriously ill and as such they should come to Bishanpur and accordingly, they went there. P.W.3 has stated in paragraph-4 that he did not find any sign of injury, etc on the dead body and suspected as if the deceased had been murdered by being suffocated to death. However, the attention of the witnesses was drawn in paragraph-9 to his previous statement and it appears that he had not given any statement that the accused persons had demanded any dowry or any money and on that account were ill- treating or torturing the lady. P.W.3 has admitted in paragraph-12 and has stated in his cross-examination that the deceased Suman Agrawal used to fall ill regularly and she was got treated and she was also suffering from paralysis. So far as P.W.4, Satya Narayan Agrawal is concerned, he was the Sala of the informant and he was the person who was also speaking about the torture on account of non-fulfillment of the demand but so far his statement on demand of money and the torture of the deceased on account of its non- fulfillment is concerned P.W.4 has admitted in paragraph-8 of his evidence that he has not made those statements before the police. Thus, the value of the evidence of P.W.4 is that he could not be a witness either on the demand or on its non-fulfillment and further on the story of torture as was propounded by him. Not only that P.W.4 has stated in paragraph-7 that he had given his statement on account of having heard about the stories on all aspects of the matter. Likewise, in paragraph-9 of his evidence P.W.4 was put a specific question as to whether his niece used to fall ill and he denied, whereafter the defence has drawn his attention to his previous statement made before the police which was of the effect that he had made a statement before the police as if the deceased used to fall ill and also that in the previous night of the occurrence the deceased had a massive stomach pain and she could not survive that. P.W.5 is Rajendra Kumar Agrawal alias Rajesh Kumar Agrawal and he was the son- in-law of the sister of the wife of the informant, his evidence I cannot accept or I cannot use for sustaining the conviction for many reasons. The first reason is that he has admitted in his evidence in paragraph-8 that his house was situated at a distance of fifty kilometers from Islampur and after having been informed by the informant, he came to accompany him to the village of the appellants. Not only that he has admitted that he gave the statement during investigation after 4-5 months of the occurrence. However, it may appear from the evidence of P.W.5 in paragraph-6 that when he and the informant reached the house of the appellants the police was very much present there, still this witness was not making any statement regarding the story of demand of any money or holding of Panchayati or ill-treatment or torture of the lady. P.W.7 is the son of the informant and he was also supporting the prosecution case but again his statement also appears contrary to his previous statement which was made before the police as may appear from paragraph-21 and the evidence of the investigating officer in paragraph-22 of P.W.6, the I.O. of the case.

12. Thus, what I find from the oral evidence is that the evidence of the prosecution on the demand and torture of the lady on account of non-fulfillment of the demand for Rs.1,00,000/- appears very shaky. The witnesses have stated that there were some Panchayati convened for settling the dispute. None of the panches who could have participated in that Panchayati was brought to depose to that effect. Not only that the particular statement of witnesses that panchayati was held appears not made. During the course of investigation and as such improvement probably made by the informant at the very time of giving his fardbeyan. Witnesses have consistently stated that the deceased was a patient of many diseases including asthma and paralysis also. The initial information which was received by the informant and other witnesses who have admitted to have received the information was that the condition of the deceased was highly critical and they rushed to the village and house of the appellants. Every witnesses have stated that he did not find any mark of violence on the dead body which was lying on the floor of the house on a bed, rather they have stated that they learnt from some source that she was ill in the previous night also. The evidence of the two doctors P.Ws.8 and 9 indicates that there was no external or internal injury found on the dead body and the doctors failed to opine about any particular reason which could have caused the death of the deceased. It appears that there was no clinical reason found by the two doctors due to which the deceased could have died and this was the reason in view of the allegations coming from the informant, that the viscera of the deceased were preserved.