JUDGMENT
Loknath Prasad, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1995 (R) and criminal appeal No. 72 of 1995 (R) were taken up together as both had arisen’ from the common judgment of conviction passed in-S.T. No. 167/1989 by Shri Bansari Ram, 1st Asstt. Sessions Judge. Palamu at Daltonganj and this common judgment will dispute of both the appeals.
2. In criminal appeal No. 56 of 1995 (R) Parsan Sao, Uday Sao and Raj Kalia Devi are the appellants and they had been convicted under Section 306, 201 and 498 (A) of the IPC. Parsan Sao has been sentenced 8 years RI under Section 306 of the IPC, one year RI under Section 201 of the IPC and two years RI under Section 498 (A) of the IPC. Uday Sao had been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 9 years, one year and two years RI under Section 306, 201 and 498-A of the IPC respectively arid similarly Raj Kalia Devi was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years, one year and two years under the same counts. Further appellant Mathura Sao of criminal appeal No. 72 1995 (R) was sentenced to under RI for ten years under Section 506 of the IPC one year RI under Section 201 of the IPC and two years RI under Section 498 (A) of the IPC and it was ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in short is that the sister of the informant was married to appellant Mathura Sao of village Chanho within Chainpur P.S. in the year 1974 but she was being ill-treated by the husband, the father-in-law Parsan Sao, mother-in-law Raj Kalia Devi @ Rajani Devi and brother-in-law Uday Sao and her husband and-in-laws were not providing even food and on one occasion her Sister Lalo Devi took Sattu after obtaining the same from co- villagers Sudama Sao and on another occasion Prabha Sao gave Rs. 30 for purchase of food articles. It has also been alleged that in-laws and even the husband were telling her sister that they will not provide her food and began to torture her and as such due to such ill-treatment her sister committed suicide alongwith her three minor children by jumping in the well. With this allegation FIR was lodged on 13.10.1980 at Chainpur Police Station.
4. It is to be noted that O.C. Chainpur P.S. on the basis of information recovered the dead body of the deceased Lalo Devi and her three minor children, namely, Jitu, Manoj and Naresh in a well near village Chanho and the well belonging to one Rajo Mian and the inquest of the dead bodies was prepared and all the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. The police after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet as against these appellants and the appellants Mathura Sao admittedly is the husband of the deceased Lalo Devi whereas Parsan Sao is the father-in-law and Raj Kalia Devi is the mother-in-law and other appellant is the brother of husband.
5. All the appellants claimed themselves innocent and denied to have tortured the deceased or her minor children in any way and it is their defence that because the daughter of Parsan Sao was married with the informant Ambika, the brother of the deceased and Ambika deserted her wife and so out of enmity they had been implicated.
6. Admittedly the deceased Lalo Sao was married in the year 1974 or so with the appellant Mathura Sao and other appellant are in-laws and on 13.10.1988 the dead bodies of the deceased Lalo Devi alongwith her three minor sons, namely, Jitu, Manoj and Naresh were recovered in decomposed condition from a well belonging to one Rajo Mian which is situated in a field. Only question for consideration is if at all these appellants used to torture the deceased by not giving the food and as such she was compelled to commit suicide alongwith her three minor children as alleged by the prosecution.
7. PW I Aliar Mian, PW 2 Harihar Sao, who is the local Mukhiya and PW 3 Amrul Hussain are all co-villager and they are men of village Chanho and they simply stated that on 13.10.1988 the dead bodies of Lalo Devi along with her three minor children were recovered form the well by the police officer with the help or Parsan Sao and these witnesses had not stated anything to show that the deceased lady was being tortured by the in-laws and the husband and they committed suicide. On the other hand, from their evidence it can be said that the appellants were not torturing the deceased or her children. PW 4 Jai Shankar Sao of village Sehra and he stated that one month prior to occurrence he had visited the village Chanho where he go his relationship with Nanhu Sao and learnt there that the deceased was being ill-treated by her in-laws and so he had gone to the house of the deceased and she narrated that she was not being provided with food by her in-laws. Third witness is a relation of the informant and actually Nandu Sao is the most competent witness because this witness had claimed that he had gone in his house and he learned about the torture of the deceased in that very house. But surprisingly Nanhu Sao not been examined. On the other hand, this witness had the tendency to exaggerate the case and has stated that actually the deceased and her three minor children were done to death by the appellants which is neither the prosecution case nor finds supports from the post-mortem report. Moreover the only evidence of this evidence is that one month prior to occurrence the deceased narrated about her difficulty and so from that it cannot be said that immediately prior to occurrence the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty by not providing the food so she committed suicide. So the evidence of PW 4 is not of any help to the prosecution to prove the case.
8. The order witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution to prove the alleged torture is PW 5, Lachhuman Prasad he is also different village Satbarwa and closely related to the deceased and he had simply stated that he had gone to the house of the deceased long ago of the occurrence and had seen the appellants abusing her. But this witness had admitted that immediately after the recovery of the dead body one of the appellants Parsan Sao had gone to the P.S. to inform about the occurrence which clearly indicate that the appellants had not concealed the dead bodies rather they cooperated with the investigation. PW 6 Chief Sao the father of the deceased and PW 8 Ambika Sao, informant were examined to prove the torture and due to that the deceased committed suicide alongwith her minor children. Both these witness had simply stated that the deceased was not property treated by her in-laws including the husband and also she was not supplied food and she used to complaining about ill-treatment off and on. But they have not stated a single word to show that immediately prior to occurrence if there was any cruelty or torture or the food were not supplied to the deceased and the children due to that she committed suicide alongwith her three minor children. It was contended on behalf of appellants that actually such allegation appears to be false for the reason that the daughter of the appellant , Parsan Sao was married with the informant i.e. the brother of the deceased and in exchange the deceased was married with the son of Parsan Sao. In such a situation the question of non-providing the food to the deceased can be completely ruled out.
9. Moreover these witnesses had also stated that it is quite possible that the deceased alongwith her children were done to death and their dead bodies were kept in the well which appears to be baseless in view of the post mortem report, to be discussed below. PW 8 Ambika Sao has also admitted in his cross-examination that he made allegation in the FIR that the deceased committed suicide along with her children only at the dictation of the sub-section of Police. If that is so the informant himself is not sure if at all his sister alongwith her children committed suicide.
10. Moreover there is specific allegation in the FIR to substantive the torture that on one occasion the deceased took Sattu from one co-villager Sudama and on another occasion she took Rs. 30 form one Prabhu Sao but these competent witness to prove the torture and non-providing of the food to the deceased by the appellants, were not examined by the prosecution nor they were cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet. Moreover all the co-villagers examined on behalf of prosecution i.e., PWs 1 to 3 had not stated anything to show that there was ill-relation between in-laws and the deceased and the deceased was not getting food in her house.
11. So as practically, there is no tangle evidence on the record to prove that the deceased was not getting food and so she committed suicide along with her three minor children. On the other hand form the post-mortem report it appears that the doctor found food material in the stomach of the dead bodies which clearly indicates that immediately prior to the occurrence the deceased and her children were supplied with the food.
12. The dead body of the deceased Lalo Devi and her three children were recovered on 13.10.1988 from a well of Rajo Mian and PW 9 Dr. Bishwanath Ojha, PW 10 Dr. R.N. Singh, PW 11, Dr. Jawahir Singh and PW 12 Dr. Thakur Kanhaiya Dayal separately held post-mortem examination on that very day on 13.10.1988 it respect of the four dead bodies and from their evidences and post-mortem report it is clear that all the dead bodies were in the decomposed stage and magotts were also found and. Further there was no injury external or internal at all and the cause of death could not be ascertained. It is also their evidence that the death took place within 3 to 5 days prior to post-mortem examination. If that is so the death took place sometime on 10.11.1988. From the evidence of the doctors it can be said that the watery substance or fluid materials were not found in the stomach and they completely ruled out the death by drawning. Admittedly from the evidence of PW 3 and that of Investigating Officer, Sachida Nand Deo who has figured as PW-8-A this much can be said that the well was deep pacca well and there was at least 10′ to 12′ water and if at all the deceased jumped in the well along with her three minor children and death was by drawing then certainly in that circumstances some abrasion would have been found and the doctor completely ruled out the case of drawning and there was no injury external or internal in any of the dead bodies. So though the case is very unfortunate but the cause of death is completely unknown in view of the evidence of the doctors and the death drawing or suicide by jumping into the well by the deceased alongwith her there minor children, can also be ruled out from the post-mortem report and the evidence of the doctors.- Admittedly the death of the deceased took place definitely more than 7 years after the marriage. In that situation no presumption can be drawn as against the appellants and practically there is no evidence at all to show that the appellants committed the murder of the deceased and had thrown the dead bodies in a well.
13. So from the discussion made above it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove in any way that the appellants used to torture the deceased by not providing food to her and to her children and so she committed suicide. In that view of the matter, the charges under Sections 306/498 (A) and that of Section 201 of the IIJC as against the appellants are bound to fail.
14. In the result both the appeals are allowed and the conviction and their sentence as recorded by the 1st Asstt. Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in S.T. No. 167/89 is hereby set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellant Parsan Sao, Uday Sao and Raj Kalia Devi @ Rajani Devi @ Rohani Devi who are in custody are to be released from jail custody forthwith, if not required in any other case. Similarly, appellant Mathura Sao who is bail is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.