Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 209 of 2005
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.1.2005 and
27.1.2005
respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-VI,
Jamshedpur, Singhbhum East in S.T. No. 240 of 2000.
Rajesh Pandey ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
For the Appellant : M/s S.N. Rajgarhia & D.K. Chakravorthy, Advocates
For the State : A.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
By Court : The present appellant, Rajesh Pandey was put on trial along with three
other accused persons for the charges under Sections 304B, 498A, 302, 201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court-VI,
Jamshedpur, by his judgment dated 24.1.2005 convicted this appellant only for the
offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He
was awarded further R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the
Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to be run
concurrently. For the charges under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, this appellant was acquitted. The other accused persons were acquitted from
all the charges. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by
the trial court by preferring this appeal.
2. The facts, in short, are that on Bali Pandey lodged a First Information
Report on 13.3.1999 with Sonari Police Station, alleging therein that his daughter
Meera Pandey was married to this appellant, Rajesh Pandey, on 8.12.1997. In the
marriage, as per the demand, dowry was given but in spite of that, his daughter was
being asked to bring more dowry from her parents and they used to torture her in
different ways due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. On receipt of such
information, the informant went to the in-laws place of his daughter and then after
seeing her condition, he brought his daughter Meera Pandey back to Dhanbad. After
2
some time, the appellant again took his wife, Meera Pandey, back to Jamshedpur.
The informant’s another daughter Radha used to visit the in-laws place of Meera
Pandey (the deceased) and she was being informed by Meera Pandey about the
atrocities being committed on her by her in-laws. Meera Pandey also sent a letter to
the informant informing him that she was being badly treated by her in-laws and
her husband who used to beat her after consuming liquor.
On 13.3.1999 at about 10 a.m., this appellant said to have informed the
informant on telephone that his daughter Meera Pandey was no more. At this, the
informant asked the appellant not to cremate her till he reaches, but the appellant
did not respond and disconnected the telephone. The informant went to the in-laws
place of her daughter at Jamshedpur along with his another son-in-law, but they
found that last rites of his daughter Meera Pandey was already done and the dead
body was thrown in the river. The police recovered the dead body of Meera Pandey
from the river. The informant saw the dead body of his daughter Meera Pandey and
found that there was some ligature mark on her neck and there were some injuries
also on her person, which indicated that she was firstly done to death and,
thereafter, her dead body was thrown in the river.
3. The police took up the investigation and, therefore, submitted charge-sheet
against all the accused persons named in the FIR and, therefore, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed, which they pleaded not
guilty and, thereafter, the accused persons including the present appellant were put
on trial.
4. In course of trial, the prosecution, in order to establish the charges,
examined altogether 15 witnesses and also adduced some documentary evidences.
5. As per the Post Mortem Report (Ext. 9), it was found that blood stained
fluid coming out from mouth and nose, nails blue, face highly congested, eyes
swollen, highly congested with presence of petchial hemorrhage in the conjunctiva
of both eyes. Tongue partially protruded and the following ante mortem injuries
were found on the dead body :-
3
” Ligature Mark – 13 c.m. x 3 to 4 c.m. on the front of the neck. The
ligature mark is contused and abrogaled at places. On dissection it is
lechery brown at places. The lungs are highly congested with
presence of petechial hemorrhage. The ligature mark is present over
the upper part of the neck internally the neck muscles are contused
in an area of 5 x 3 c.m. in the right side of the neck middle part just
below the ligature mark. “
According to the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was
strangulation and time elapsed since death was 24 to 48 hours. Though the doctor,
who conducted the Post Mortem, was not examined by the prosecution, but the Post
Mortem Report was brought on record and proved by an another doctor, P.W. 12,
who was posted as Associate Professor in the Department of Forensic Science of
M.G.M. Medical College, Jamshedpur and was acquainted with the handwriting of
Dr. Renu Bala, who had conducted the Post Mortem Examination.
6. The trial court, on the basis of the materials on record, acquitted the other
three accused persons namely, Indradeo Pandey, Janki Devi and Ganesh Pandey,
who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the
deceased, from all the charges but found this appellant guilty and convicted him for
the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him
to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and
further to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 201 of Indian
Penal Code. However, he was acquitted from the charges under Sections 304B and
498A of Indian Penal Code.
7. Mr. S.N. Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenging
the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant submitted that the
prosecution has not been able to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubts
against this appellant and the trial court only on the basis of presumption,
conjuncture and surmises has found this appellant guilty and as such the same is not
sustainable in law.
4
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of
the record, we do find that the trial court having taken into consideration the
evidences led by the prosecution did find that the prosecution has failed to establish
the factum of demand of dowry and subjection to cruelty and as such acquitted the
appellant and other accused persons for the charges under Sections 304B and 498A
of Indian Penal Code and at the same time, the trial court also acquitted the other
accused persons for the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of Indian Penal
Code, but the trial court on the same set of evidences found the appellant guilty for
the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that
there was unnatural death of the deceased for which no satisfactory explanation was
put forth by the appellant to the family members of the deceased; and that the
appellant did not take any step for saving life of his wife if she had committed
suicide; and that there was motive for committing offence of murder, as the
appellant was not happy with his wife, as she was not mentally sound.
9. Having gone through the evidences led by the prosecution, we do find that
the prosecution sought to prove the charges by leading evidences that the deceased
was strangulated to death in the house of the appellant but the prosecution has
failed to assign any motive for committing murder of the deceased, though the trial
court, on the basis of the statement made by the appellant in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.C.P. that he was made to marry the deceased though she was not
mentally fit, assumed that the appellant was not happy with the deceased, but the
evidence led in this regard on behalf of the prosecution is quite otherwise, wherein
P.W. 2 has testified that he, being a neighbour, never heard about any altercation
being taken place in between the wife and husband. Nothing has been brought on
record to establish that the relationship in between the wife and husband was not
cordial. In that event, the trial court was not correct in assuming that there was a
motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Further, we
do find that the appellant had also informed to the parents of the deceased about the
death of the deceased but that act of giving information which normally speaks
5
about the innocence of the accused has back fired, as it was assumed by the court
that it was the appellant who gave information about the death of the deceased was
alone present in the house and was responsible for the offence alleged though the
court has itself recorded that the prosecution has not brought evidence with respect
to the persons who were living in the house and on that ground the trial court
acquitted the other accused but convicted the appellant on the same material which
was there against the other accused persons. In this respect, it be stated that it is true
that non-disclosure of any special knowledge of any factual aspect is taken to be
incriminating circumstances but in the instant case, it is never the case of the
prosecution that it was the appellant who was alone living in the house along with
the deceased and under these situations, the prosecution can never be said to have
proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, we do find that nothing is there
to establish about the motive for committing the offence nor the prosecution has
been able to establish that it was the appellant who was alone in the house along
with the deceased and that the appellant had informed about the death of the
deceased to her family members and that as the other accused persons on the same
set of evidences have been acquitted, the appellant, in that circumstances as
aforesaid, deserves to have benefit of doubt.
10. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is
hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
Consequently, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any
other case.
11. In the result, this appeal is allowed.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J.)
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 27/01/2009
N.A.F.R. /AKT