Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 428 of 1990 (P)
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01/09/1990,
passed by Sri Ram Vyas Ram, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in
Sessions Case No. 173 of 1988.
Shiv Shankar Sah.............................. Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand).................. Respondent
......
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad.
For the State : Mr. Binod Singh, A.P.P.
......
PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Jaya Roy
JUDGMENT
By Court The present appeal has been filed by the sole appellant
Shiv Shankar Sah against the judgment dated 01/09/1990 passed by
the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No.
173/1988, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted
the appellant for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC for committing
the murder of Renu Devi and thereby, sentenced him to undergo R.I.
for life. The three other accused namely, Madan Lal Sah, Bina Devi and
Bhuli Devi, who were tried together with the present appellant,
however, have been acquitted from the charges under Section 302/34
IPC by the trial court.
2. One Narayn Kumar Mukherjee (PW-3), who is a Pujari of a
"Yaga Shala", situated in Basukinath gave a Fardbeyan to O/C
Jarmundi police station on 05/09/1986 stating therein that his "Yaga
Shala", where he used to reside, was situated just opposite to the house
of Balgovind Sah, the father of the appellant and he was closely
acquainted with all the family members of the said Balgovind Sah. He
alleged that Renu Devi, the daughter-in-law of Balgovind Sah, i.e. the
wife of this appellant, was not pulling on well with her in laws and she
was being tortured and assaulted by her husband Shiv Shankar Sah
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 428 of 1990 P
[2]
(appellant) due to which since last six months she was staying with her
parents. He further stated that the daughter -in-law of Balgovind Sah,
i.e. Renu Devi was a very noble lady and only on the last Saturday she
was reached to her in laws place by her father. In that very night, the
in-laws of Renu Devi quarreled with her father. Though Renu Devi had
requested her parents not to leave her at her in laws place since she
was frightened that her in-law would kill her but her parents left her in
her in laws place and returned in the next morning. These facts the
informant came to know from the daughter of Balgovind Sah namely
Guddi. It was further alleged that since thereafter, Renu Devi was being
ill treated and tortured by her in laws.
The informant further alleged that at about 11 P.M. in the
night of Thursday he heard the noise of quarreling coming from the
house of the accused persons but at that time Balgovind Sah was not
there in his house since he had gone to Haridwar. In the late night at
about 3.00 a.m., he heard the screaming alarm of Renu Devi as "Mat
Maro- Mat Maro" and "Maa Pani Do-Pani Do Tel Dalkar Jala Diya". The
informant further heard the voice of two more ladies, who were abusing
Renu Devi and were asking her to keep quite. Suddenly, he saw smoke
coming out from the main door of the house of the appellant and then
he gave a call to the appellant Shiv Shankar Sah and asked him as to
why smoke is coming out from his house and whether fire has broken
out in his house? AT this, this appellant said to have replied that
nothing has happened. But in the meantime, on hearing hulla,
neighbouring people assembled there and asked the appellant to open
the door but the appellant did not open the door. Thereafter, a few
persons even kicked the door by legs but the brother-in-law of the
appellant namely Madan came at the top of the roof and told the
neighbourers that it was their family matter and, therefore, they should
not interfere. It is said that after some time, the appellant came out of
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 428 of 1990 P
[3]
his house and went somewhere. Lateron the informant saw that the
appellant brought a Maxi vehicle and got it parked in front of his door
and hurriedly got Renu Devi boarded on the said vehicle in badly burnt
condition and then went away. Subsequently, the informant came to
know that Renu Devi died in the hospital. The informant further alleged
in the Fardbeyan that he was well acquainted with the family of
Balgovind Sah. The appellant as well as the daughter of Balgovind Sah
namely Bina Devi was not of good character and this fact was known to
all the neighbouring people. He further alleged that the deceased Renu
Devi was regularly being assaulted and tortured by the appellant and
his family members and though the informant requested them not to ill
treat her but they did not listen and ultimately Renu Devi was burnt to
death by them. .
3. On the report of the informant Narayan Kumar Mukherjee,
F.I.R. was registered and then the police came into action and started
investigation of the case. On 06/09/1986 the Officer-in-Charge of the
police station sent a letter to the father of Renu Devi namely Motilal
Sah through a constable informing him that his daughter Renu Devi
has been burnt to death. On this information, the father of the
deceased Renu Devi came to Dumka and met the Officer-in-Charge
and, then, after the Post Mortem examination of the dead body, it was
cremated. Subsequently, he went to Basukinath and met the
informant, who narrated the entire story as to how his daughter was
burnt to death by the accused persons.
4. The father of the deceased Renu Devi gave in writing to the
Investigating Officer stating therein that the accused persons were
demanding dowry, which could not be fulfilled by him and he brought
his daughter to the house of the appellant on 30th August 1986 but on
that day, her mother-in-law started abusing Renu Devi in his presence.
However, he left his daughter there and went back to his village. The
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 428 of 1990 P
[4]
said complaint, made in writing by the father of the deceased Renu
Devi, was adduced in evidence as Ext.1. It was proved by Motilal Sah
himself (PW-1).
5. The police after completion of the investigation submitted
charge sheet and, thereafter, all the accused persons were put on trial.
6. In order to substantiate the charges, in course of trial,
altogether 9 prosecution witnesses were examined and several
documents were also adduced in evidence and were marked as
exhibits.
7. The learned trial court, on the basis of the evidence and
materials on record, found the present appellant guilty for the charges
under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life
whereas other three accused persons, who were tried together with the
appellant, were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to
establish the charges against them.
Against the said judgment of the trial court, the present
appeal has been filed by the sole appellant Shiv Shanker Sah.
8. The whole case is based on the circumstantial evidence
since there is no eyewitness to the occurrence.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant challenging the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant
has submitted that the chain of circumstances, which have been relied
by the trial court are not as such which clearly indicate towards the
guilt of the appellant and the circumstances, which have been brought
in evidence are not even complete so as to come to the logical
conclusion that it was the appellant who committed the murder of his
wife Renu Devi by setting her on fire.
It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that in fact, the deceased caught accidental fire while she was
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 428 of 1990 P
[5]
preparing food for the children and there is no evidence to the effect
that she was burnt to death by the appellant or any other person.
10. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant, we have minutely scrutinized the oral as well as
documentary evidence, adduced by the prosecution.
11. PW-1 Motilal Sah is the father of the deceased Renu Devi.
This witness has specifically stated that his daughter Renu Devi was
being tortured and ill treated by her husband and her in-laws due to
non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. She was regularly being
abused and assaulted by them. From his evidence it appears that Renu
Devi had two daughters. It has come in the evidence of this witness
that in the month of June 1986 the accused persons has sent Renu
Devi back to her father's house alone by a Bus and after 2-3 days the
son-in-law, i.e. the present appellant went to his in-laws place, i.e. the
parent's house of Renu Devi and he refused to take back his wife with
him rather he asked this witness PW-1 to reacg his daughter to his
house. Accordingly, PW-1 went to the house of the appellant on
30/08/1986
with his daughter where she was abused by the accused
persons in his presence. From the statement of PW-1 it appears that
the relationship between the husband and the wife and between the in-
laws and the daughter-in-law were very much strained and was not at
all congenial. It is pertinent to note that PW-1 reached his daughter to
the house of the appellant on 30th August 1986 and just after 5 days
the occurrence took place and the deceased was burnt to death.
13. PW-2 Naurangi Sah has been declared hostile. PW-3
Narayan Kumar Mukherjee is the informant. He was also examined
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation and his statement has
been marked as Ext.- 1/1. This witness PW-3 is the main witness of the
prosecution, who used to live in his Yagya Shala, which was situated
just opposite to the house of the appellant at a distance of 10-12
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 428 of 1990 P
[6]
cubits. He has stated that on the date and time of occurrence smoke
was coming out from the house of the appellant from the ground floor
though the whole family of the appellant used to live in the upper floor.
This witness has fully corroborated his statements made in the F.I.R.
as well as the statement made by him under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He
has clearly stated that he heard the alarm of Renu Devi, who was
crying saying “Bachao-Bachao” and “Pani Pilao-Pani Pilao”. This PW-3
was the first person who reached at the place of occurrence. He saw
that at about 3.00 ‘O’ clock in the night the smoke coming out from the
house of the appellant and the door was closed from inside and in spite
of being asked the door was not opened by the appellant or any of his
family members rather this witness was asked to go back since it was
their family affair.
The statement of this witness is fully consistent and
nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant specifically so
as to make his evidence unbelievable or unreliable rather we find that
this witness is a truthful witness and has stated in detail about the
occurrence which he has seen.
14. The Investigating Officer (PW-8) has stated in his evidence
that the place of occurrence was the house of the appellant. In the
ground floor he found some half burnt clothes and in a corner of one
room he found a small bottle from which smell of Kerosene Oil was
coming out. He also found a match box and also a stove. He further
found the blackening of wall due to smoke. He seized the stove, the
Kerosene Oil bottle, the match box as well as the half burnt clothes,
which were marked as material Ext. (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv). The evidence of
the Investigating Officer coupled with the material exhibits which were
seized from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer fully
corroborated the evidence of PW-3 and it lays suppot of the fact that at
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 428 of 1990 P
[7]
the relevant time the deceased was burnt to death by using kerosene
Oil kept in the bottle and found at the spot.
15. The plea of the appellant that the deceased died due to
accidental fire while she was preparing food for the children is not
believable simply because that nobody would believe that the deceased
was preparing food for children at 3.00 ‘O’ Clock in the night and that
also on the ground floor of the house when everybody used to reside at
the upper floor. If at all Renu Devi caught accidental fire while
preparing food then why the appellant or any of his family members did
not try to save her by extinguishing fire after hearing the alarm and
cries of Renu Devi. Natural human conduct would be in such case to
make an attempt to save the life of the victim by extinguishing the fire
but this is not the case here. If at all she caught fire accidentally then
why on alarm raised by her the appellant did not try to save her. If the
appellant would have tried to save his wife then he must have received
some burn injuries on his palm or hands but curiously enough no such
any injury was found on the person of the appellant. It is only when the
deceased got severe burn injury and when she was almost at the verge
of death and when she was not in a position to speak then she was
taken to the hospital by the appellant but by the time she reached to
the hospital, she died. Therefore, action of taking the injured Renu Devi
to the hospital by the appellant was nothing but to create defence to
save his own skin.
16. Thus, from the evidence, which has been discussed above,
we have no doubt in our mind that in order to kill his wife Renu Devi
the appellant set her on fire by pouring Kerosene Oil and due to the
severe burn injuries she died. We find that the learned trial court has
rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence of murder
of his wife Renu Devi.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 428 of 1990 P
[8]
17. In view of the discussions and findings above, we find no
merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. The
appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled and he is
directed to surrender before the court below to serve out the sentence.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J)
(Jaya Roy, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 20th October, 2008,
NAFR/Mukund c.p-3