JUDGMENT
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.5.2000 and order of sentence dated 30.5.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned Court of Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh found the appellants guilty Under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to be as ‘Code’) and sentenced appellant No. 1 Naresh Prasad Mehta to undergo R.I. for life and appellant No. 2 Samli Devi @ Shanti Devi to undergo R.I. for ten years.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that informant Indradeo Mahto gave his written report to the Ichak Police Station on 24.11.1995 at about 10.45 a.m. to the effect that his daughter Rita Devi was married with the appellant No. 1 Naresh Prasad Mehta in the year 1994. It is alleged that about a fortnight ago to the date of occurrence, victim girl had come to her parents’ house and had made complaints against the appellant No. 1 Naresh Prasad Mehta, who is her husband, and appellant No. 2 Samli Devi @ Shanti Devi, who is her mother-in-law, she made complaint that they are demanding motor-cycle and cash from her as dowry. After hearing this from his daughter, informant went to his daughter’s Sasural and pacified the appellants and then left his daughter there. On 24.11.1995 at about 9.00 a.m., he came to know that on 22.11.1995 appellants had killed his daughter Rita Devi by throwing her into the well. After receiving this piece of information, he immediately went there along with Sitaram Mehta, Badri Mehta and others and found his daughter lying on cot and he went to the police station and gave written report. He further alleged that dead body of his daughter is still lying in the village. On the basis of this written report, Ichak Police Station instituted a case against the appellants bearing Ichak P.S. Case No. 82 of 1995 and investigation was taken up. After going through the paraphernalia and investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet Under Sections 304B/34 of the Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges against the appellants were framed Under Sections 304B/34 of the Code and the learned Court below on the basis of evidence-both oral and documentary – found the allegation true against the appellants and accordingly convicted them and sentenced them as above.
3. The defence has taken a plea that she had gone to fetch water and fell into the well and she died due to drowning.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the judgment on the ground that there is no witness on the point that soon before her (Rita Devi) death, there was demand of dowry and for that, torture was committed upon her. There is no witness on the point of demand of dowry and those who have come to say so are hearsay witnesses. The judgment has further been assailed on the ground that P.W. 4 who is doctor has not come to the finding about cause of death and all witnesses are interested persons and the symptoms do not suggest that death occurred due to throttling but suggest that death occurred due to drowning.
5. Altogether 13 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of which P.W. 6, P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 12 have been tendered for their cross-examination. P.W. 11 is a witness to the inquest report.
6. P,W. 4 Suresh Kumar Sinha is a doctor who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rita Devi. According to him, on 24.11.1995 he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh as Civil Assistant Surgeon and on that very day at about 3.30 p.m. he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rita Devi aged 20 years and found the following :
Hair – black
Eyes – closed
Mouth – partly opened, froth found in the nostrils, Rigor Mortis present in both upper and lower limbs.
Abrasion 1″ x 1″ at the back of right elbow.
On dissection
(i) Trachea found congested. Thyroid bone found fractured
(ii) Heart: Right side – blood clot
Left side – empty
(iii) Liver }
Spleen : } Intact and congested
Kidneys }
(iv) Stomach – Undigested food material found
(v) Urinary bladder-empty
(vi) Uterus – Nongravid
(vii) Time elapsed since death within 48 hours
(viii) According to doctor’s opinion, death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling.
The post-mortem report was prepared by the doctor (Ext. 1). According to the doctor, fracture of thyroid bone is the cardinal sign of throttling. In cross-examination, the doctor has stated that stragulation is violent form of murder, it results from constricting the neck by means of ligature or by any other means without suspending the body. It is also called throttling. Throttling amounts to pressure on the air passes may be produced by the pressure with the help of ringers and palm. It is further stated that in case of stragulation, usually blood comes out from the nostrils and mouth in case of rupture of blood vessels. Clinching of hand is also a sign of strangulation. According to doctor, in the instant case, death was instantaneous. But he did not find any ligature mark on the neck, abrasion, scratch mark, finger mark, thumb mark or any knot on the neck. It is further stated that if a person jumps in the well and strikes against the wall, there cannot be fracture of thyroid bone.
7. P.W. 8 is Indradeo Mahto who is informant of this case. He has stated that in 1994 he married his daughter with the appellant No. 1 Naresh Prasad Mehta and after marriage, his daughter remained peacefully in her Sasural for one year. He further says that fifteen days before the occurrence, appellant No. 1 got vidagari of his daughter done and took her to his home and one week thereafter his daughter again came back to him and told him that her husband and her mother-in-law have demanded Rs. 50,000/- and motor-cycle asking her to go and bring the same from her father and if she refuses to go, then consequences will be very bad. They always used to quarrel with her and used to tell her that if she does not go, then she may be murdered. He again went with his daughter to the appellants and pursuaded the appellants and left his daughter in her Sasural. But on 24.11.1995 one week after he left his daughter in her Sasural, a boy from her Sasural area came to him and informed that his daughter is dead. On receiving this piece of information, he went to her daughter’s Sasural along with four and five persons and saw the dead body of his daughter lying beside the well on a cot; household members had left the house after locking the house. He further saw abrasion on her right elbow, he felt that his daughter was first murdered and thereafter her dead body was thrown into the well. He has denied that his daughter Jiad cordial relation with her husband. He has further denied that in course of fetching water from well, she fell into the well and died due to drowning.
8. Other witnesses such as P.W. 1, RW. 2 and RW. 3 have corroborated the statement of RW. 8 on the point of marriage, demand of dowry and torture and on the point of occurrence.
9. RW. 13 is the I.O. of the case. He has stated that on the written report of RW. 8, a case was registered and he took up the investigation, he inspected the P.O. According to him, P.O. is the well near area of the house of the appellants in village Allauachakkhud under Ichak Police Station and the dead body was lying on the cot.
10. P.W. 5 is mother. She has stated same thing as other witnesses have stated.
11. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Rita Devi died due to drowning and this will be clear from the evidence of P.W. 11, who is the witness to inquest report when he says that stomach was swollen and she had died due to fall into the well. He has further stated that her (deceased) husband also went inside the well and somehow both of them were taken out. Similarly, P.W. 10 who has been tendered for cross-examination has also stated that on hulla, he went and saw that appellant No. 1 Naresh Prasad Mehta had got inside the well and dead body of Rita Devi was taken out from the well. Learned Counsel further pointed out that evidence of doctor that she died due to asphyxia caused by throttling is not correct in view of the fact that no symptoms of throttling to death have been found. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in a case of throttling to death, certain symptoms appear on the dead body, but in the instant case those symptoms are absent whereas from the inquest report (Ext. 5) it appears that stomach was found swollen which goes to show that she fell into the well at the time of fetching water and she inhaled water, as a result of which her stomach was found swollen. Learned Counsel further submitted that if a person is dead and he is thrown into the well, then he will not inhale water and his stomach will not swell, but in the instant case, stomach was found swollen which goes to show that she died due to drowning. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was no case of demand of dowry and there was no case of torture as RW. 5 who is mother of Rita Devi (deceased) has stated that she was all through in her house and, therefore, when Rita Devi was in her Naihar and died, no case is made out Under Section 304 of the Code.
12. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submitted that marriage was solemnized within one year or so of the occurrence and it was for the appellant to explain the cause of death but they have not been able to explain the cause of death. Learned State Counsel also submitted that though a witness on behalf of the defence has been examined and has proved a letter purported to have been written by Rita Devi (deceased) and her admitted signature on the admit card show that letter is in her handwriting and she has not written anything against her husband or mother-in-law, although in a letter to her father, she had written about demand of dowry from the appellants, but prosecution has denied the letter. Besides doctor (P.W. 4) has found cause of death as throttling and, therefore, throttling is always homicidal not suicidal or accidental.
13. On a careful scrutiny of evidence – both oral and documentary – adduced on behalf of both the sides, it will appear that Rita Devi was taken on vidagari about a fortnight ago by her husband from her Naihar to her Sasural and on this point, besides informant (P.W. 8) P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have deposed. Evidence have also come to the effect that one week prior to the occurrence, Ritla Devi had come from her Sasural to her Naihar and narrated about the demand of money and motor-cycle to her father, then her father went to her Sasural with her and parsuaded the appellants and thereafter P.W. 8 who is father of Rita Devi (deceased) left her there. But after one week, he received information that his daughter is dead. Thereafter he along with others went to Sasural of Rita Devi and found her dead. On point of demand of dowry, P.W. 8 has specifically stated so, besides P.W. 1 has specifically stated to a Court question that he came to know about the demand of dowry from Rita Devi herself and from P.W. 5 who is mother of Rita Devi. P.W. 2 has also stated that he had knowledge about the demand of dowry. P.W. 3 has also stated that one week prior to the occurrence, Rita Devi (deceased) sent to her Naihar for bringing Rs. 50,000/- in cash and a motor-cycle and she was threatened with dire consequences if that demand is not fulfilled., P.W. 5 who is mother has also made similar statement.
14. P.W. 4 (doctor) who has conducted the post-mortem examination, came to a finding that Rita Devi (deceased) died due to asphyxia due to throttling and he has opined that fracture of thyroid bone is a cardinal sign of throttling. The doctor was cross-examined at length but he denied that Rita Devi (deceased) died due to drowning because to a query, he specifically stated that in a case if a person jumps into the well and strikes against the wall, there cannot be fracture of thyroid bone whereas fracture of thyroid bone can take place only if a person is throttled to death. He further stated that other symptoms did not appear but he was definite that Rita Devi was throttled to death.
15. From the discussions made above, it is clear that soon before death of Rita Devi, there was demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty prior to her death and due to non-fulfilment of dowry, she was throttled to death by the appellants and prosecution has been able to prove guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In the result, we do not find any material to interfere with the findings of the learned Court below and there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.