JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction, sentence dated 19.6.93 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gulma in Sessions Trial No. 218/91, whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellants under Section 304B/34 IPC read with Sections 201/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years each under Sections 304B/34, IPC and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Sections 201/34, IPC.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the information’s daughter Mundrika Devi was married with the appellant Suresh Sahu in the month of Baisakh, 1990 according to Hindu rites and at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 24,000 was given to Suresh Sahu for purchasing a motor cycle. But, Suresh Sahu demanded another sum of Rs. 10,000 which was promised to be fulfilled later on by the informant. It is alleged that in the year 1991, the appellant Suresh Sahu along with the deceased came to the house of the informant on the eve of Holi festival and at that time also the appellant Suresh Sahu had demanded Rs. 10,000 and TV from his father-in-law (informant) which could not be fulfilled and the informant showed his inability, whereupon, Suresh Sahu is alleged to have assaulted Mundrika Devi in presence of the informant and had threatened that if the sum of Rs. 10,000 and TV is not given to him within a period of two months, his daughter Mundrika Devi will be killed. After giving such threat, the appellant Suresh Sahu left his Sasural leaving behind his wife at her paternal place. It is further alleged that Mundrika Devi complained to her father that her in-laws, Dewar and husband used to assault her for money and TV and always used to threaten her that she will be killed. It is further stated that after one week the information sent her daughter with his son Jit Narayan Sahu. On 27.3.91 at about 8.30 in the morning a boy came on a Rajdoot motor cycle and told the informant that his daughter Mundrika Devi is seriously ill and on further inquiry, he disclosed that Mundrika Devi is dead. The information sent his son Jit Narayan Sahu with that, boy on his motor cycle saying that he will be coming later on the scooter of Mohnath Sahu. The informant reached the village Murgu and learnt from the villagers that the dead-body of Mundrika Devi has been taken to Nagphani Ghat. So, the information went to Nagphani ghat and learnt that the dead-body of his daughter was burnt. The information made inquiry from his Samdhi Hari Mohan Sahu, Suresh Sahu and Naresh Sahu as to the cause of death who told that on 26.3.91 at about 7.00 p.m. Mundrika Devi felt pain in her abdomen and so they took her to Referal Hospital, Sisai, and got her examined by Dr. Sugan Bai, who gave her medicine but in the night at 3.00 a.m. Mundrika Devi died. When the informant enquired from his Samdhi that why the dead-body was cremated so soon before his arrival his Samdhi replied to him that the same was cremated because it would have decomposed. Thereafter, the informant went to village Murgu and made inquiry from the villagers, namely Shankar Sabu and Kesheri Sahu about the death of the Mundrika Devi who disclosed to him that till the evening of 26.3.99 Mundrika Devi was seen working which gave rise to suspicion in the mind of the informant, who went to Referal Hospital, Sisai where he learnt from the staff on duty that no woman named as Mundrika Devi was brought to the Hospital for treatment on 26.3.99 and Dr. Sugan Sahu was on leave since 25.3.91. The suspicion of the informant was fortified by the above disclosures made by the Hospital staff and the Informant became confident that his daughter has been killed by the accused persons for the non-fulfilment of the dowry of Rs. 10,000 and TV made by his son-in-law Suresh Sahu. The informant went to the police station and lodged the FIR, on the basis of which, a case under Sections 302/201/34, IPC was registered and the police submitted charge-sheet in the case under Sections 304B, 201/34, IPC on the basis of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. The accused-appellants were charged under Sections 304B/201/34, IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and their defence was that they are quite innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case.
4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecutions examined as many as nine witnesses in the case and the defence also examined five witnesses and the prescription of Dr. Sugan Sai (Ext. A) was proved.
5. Out of the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Suka Ohdar is the formal witness who has proved the FIR (Ext. 1) PW-3 Shankar Sahu who is the own brother-in-law of the deceased has been tendered for cross-examination and there is nothing in their cross-examination.
6. It may be stated at the very outset that in a case under Section 304B, IPC, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients:
I. The death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise that under normal circumstances;
II. Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
III. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
IV. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand for dowry.
7. In the case of Keshab Chandra Panda v. State 1995 CriLJ 174, it has been held that for proving the charge under Section 304B, there must be materials to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of natural or accidential death or has to bring it within the purview of death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances. Prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty of harassment and only in that case, presumption operates and evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution.
8. In the instant case, it is admitted position that the deceased Mundrika Devi was married in the year 1990 and her death took place on 26.3.91, i.e., within a period of seven years but that alone does not attract the application of Section 304.-B, IPC unless the prosecution proves the other essential ingredients of the section as referred to above which is a matter of evidence and shall be discussed hereafter. Admittedly, the dead-body of Mundrika Devi was disposed of on 27.3.91. So, there is no medical evidence or any other evidence on record which may show that Mundrika Devi had suffered any bodily injuries or any burn injuries which may lead to presumption that she died in abnormal circumstances. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstances that the dead-body of Mundrika Devi was disposed of hurriedly to wipe out the evidence which would have been found otherwise and it has been suspected that the appellant committed the murder of Mundrika Devi for the demand of dowry and disposed of her dead-body in hurried manner. The FIR reveals that on the eve of Holi, the appellant Suresh Sao had gone to his Sasural along with his wife (deceased) and had repeated the demand of dowry for a sum of Rs. 10,000 and TV and had threatened that if the same is not fulfilled, he will kill his wife but his demands were not fulfilled by the informant due to his incapability. The appellant Suresh Sao left his Sasural by giving such threat leaving behind his wife in her parents’ house and after seven days, the informant is said to have sent his daughter Mundrika Devi to her in-laws place along with his son Jit Narayan Sahu (PW-8) and thereafter the informant learnt about the death of his daughter. So, this is another circumstance on which the prosecution has based its case that Mundrika Devi was done to death for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.
9. Save and except the circumstances enumerated above the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that soon before her death Mundrika Devi was subjected to any cruelty or harassment at the hands of the appellant for non-fulfilment of the dowry and ultimately Mundrika Devi was done to death.
10. On the contrary, it is stated in the FIR itself and the informant has also deposed in his evidence that when he returned from the cremation ground to village Margu and made enquiries from the witnesses, namely Shankar Sahu and Kesheri Sahu he learnt that on 26.3.91 the deceased was seen doing the household works in evening hours in the normal condition which suggests that there was nothing abnormal to draw any presumption about the cruelty of harassment to her. In my view, if the the deceased would have been subjected to cruelty or harassment for the non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution the deceased would not have been seen working in normal condition by the witnesses of the village from whom the informant is said to have gathered information. As such, this circumstance goes against the prosecution version.
11. Adverting myself to the evidence led by the prosecution, I find that PW-2 Manoj Srivastav, who is the resident of village Murgu and is s a most uninterested witness has deposed that he had seen the appellants taking Mundrika Devi on a Matador because she was ill and on inquiry he learnt from Dinesh that Mundrika Devi was pregnant and she has developed pain in her abdomen. In his cross-examination PW-2, has admitted that he was on regular visiting terms with the accused-persons and the deceased had no compliant against her husband or her in-laws. He further admitted that when the accused-persons were taking away Mundrika Devi, she was crying and has also admitted that there were about 60-70 persons at the cremation ground and everybody was waiting for the arrival of the informant and with the consent of Jit Narayan Sahu (PW-8) the dead-body was burnt. As such, it would appear from the evidence of PW-2 whose house is situated next to the house of the appellant that Mundrika Devi who was carrying pregnancy suffered with abdominal pain and was taken to the Hospital for treatment but she could not survive and it further appears that the dead-body of Mundrika Devi was disposed of with the consent of the informant’s son Jit Narayan Sahu (PW-8).
12. PW-3 Shankar Sahu is none else but the own brother-in-law of the deceased and he has not whispered a word that the appellant made any demand of dowry from the informant.
13. PW-4 Jag Mohan Sahu has deposed that on 27.3.91 at about 5 a.m., he heard cries coming out from the house of the accused and so he went there and learnt that Mundrika Devi has died and at the request Dinesh, he went to inform the informant on his motor cycle and gave information to him about the death. If further appears from his evidence that PW-8 Jit Narayan Sao came, to village Murgu on his motor cycle from where both of them went to cremation ground and till their arrival the dead-body had not been burnt. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and he denied to have stated before the police that when he reached the cremation ground the dead-body of Mundrika Devi had already been burnt. In this cross-examination, this witness has also stated that about 60-65 persons were present at the Ghat and Jit Narayan Sahu had seen the dead body of his sister and when the informant did not reach, the dead-body was burnt with the consent of Jit Nafyana Sahu. He has also stated that Mundrika Devi had no complaint with her husband or from her in-laws.
14. PW-5 Kesheri Sao has supported the fact that on 26.3.99 he had seen a Matador Van in front of the house of accused Hari Mohan Master in the evening hours on which Mundrika Devi who was suffering with abdominal pain was carried to Sisai Hospital. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that Mundrika Devi was pregnant at the time of the alleged occurrence and he had no talk with the informant on the alleged date of occurrence. He has also supported that the dead-body was cremated after the arrival of Jit Narayan Sahu in presence of 70-72 villagers and Mundrika Devi had no complaint or any ill feelings with her husband.
15. PW-6 Rama Sao is the informant of this case who has supported the prosecution story as depicted in the FIR and has stated that he returned to village Murgu from burning Ghat and met Shankar Sao and Kesheri Sao who informed him that the deceased was seen doing household works till the evening of 26.3.91 in normal condition on which he suspected some thing foul and went to the Referral Hospital, Sisai and there he learnt from the staff of the Hospital that his daughter was not brought for treatment and Dr. Sugan Sai was on leave from 25.3.91 and after knowing this fact, he believed that his daughter has been done to death by the accused-persons. It may be pointed out that Shankar Sao and Kesheri Sao have not been examined by the prosecution nor the staff of trie Referral Hospital from whom PW-6 learnt the aforesaid facts have been examined. It is manifest from the evidence of PW-6 that he drew suspicion about the death of his daughter because the witnesses of the village had informed him that his daughter was seen in normal condition meaning thereby that she was not ill and secondly that he learnt from the staff of the Referral Hospital of Sisai that his daughter had not been brought to the hospital for her treatment. Let us see how far these circumstances giving rise to entertaining doubt or suspicion about the death of the deceased has been established from the evidence of the PWs. In this connection, I would refer to the witnesses examined by the defence. DW-4 Md. Banu Mian is the driver of the Matador bearing No. BIN 9244 on which the deceased was taken to the Hospital. He has deposed that on 26.3.91 Naresh Sao came to him and told that he has to take his sister-in-law to the hospital because it is delivery case and so he went with him to village Murgu and the deceased alone with her family members boarded on his vehicle and he went to Referral Hospital the doctor was not available in the Hospital. But the doctor was available in his quarter, so the deceased was taken to his quarter where she was examined and the doctor advised to, take the patient to Ranchi but her condition was very bad and she died on the way. DW-4 has been cross-examined at length and he claimed to have made statement before the police that he had carried the deceased to the hospital, on his Matador and nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination so as to render his version unworthy of placing credence to.
16. DW-3 Dr. Sugan Sai was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon of Referral Hospital, Sisai and he has deposed on oath that on 26.3.91, he examined the deceased at his residence and since her condition was serious, he referred the patient to RMCH. DW-3 has also proved the prescription Ext A by which he prescribed medicine to the deceased. In cross-examination, DW-3 has admitted that he is a physician and the petitioner was suffering with gynaecological trouble and it also appears from the prescription prescribed by him that the deceased was having complaint for pain in her abdomen and was bleeding for which he had prescribed certain medicines and referred her to RMCH for further treatment. It appears from his cross-examination that the deceased was examined by DW-3 in the eight hours after 9.00 p.m. because he was asleep and he used to sleep at 9.00 p.m. As such, the deceased was shown to him sometime after 9.00 p.m. DW-3 has also stated that he adviced the attendants of the patient to contact the lady doctor available in the Referral Hospital but they did not become ready to get the deceased examined by the lady doctor and it appears that at the advice of DW 3 the deceased was being taken to Ranchi for treatment but she died. It would, therefore, appear from the evidence of DWs 3 and 4 who appear to be most uninterested witnesses that they have supported the defence version to the effect that the deceased was suffering with gynaecological trouble having pain in her abdomen for which she was taken to the Doctor, who advised and referred the patient to RMCH for better treatment but she could not survive and died on the way because of the problem. It is also established from the evidence of DW-3 that the deceased was pregnant although this fact has been suppressed by the informant (PW-6), who has shown his ignorance. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of DW-3, who appears to be an independent witness. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, it would appear that the ground on which the informant raised doubt or suspicion regarding the death of his daughter has been falsified by the evidence of DWs 3 and 4 and it is established that the deceased had actually been taken to the Hospital for her treatment as she was suffering with gynaecological problem. The non-examination of the two witnesses, namely, 1. Shankar Sao and 2. Kesheri Sao is yet another circumstance which belies the version of the informant that they had informed him that this daughter was seen in normal condition doing house hold works and this was another ground for the informant to entertain doubt that his daughter has been murdered by the accused persons for the non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.
17. In his evidence, PW-6 has stated that his daughter had written one or two letters to him but he has not disclosed about the contents of the letters. Even assuming that the deceased might have complained about the ill treatment meted out to her at the hands of in-laws. It was obligatory on the part of PW-6 to produce those letters to unfold the truth but those letters were not produced by him and no explanation has been given for its non-prosecution, as such it remained a myth that whether the deceased had written any letter to him at all or had complained about the alleged torture meted out to her.
18. The next important witness in this case is PW-8 Jit Narayan Sao who is the own brother of the deceased and had gone along with PW-4 on getting information about the death of his sister. This witness has stated that when he reached cremation Ghat he saw that the dead-body of his sister was all most burnt and he has denied that the dead-body was burnt after his consent. The evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence to believe. It seems that since he is the own brother of the deceased and highly interested witness he made false statement inasmuch, as the witnesses of the prosecution have fortified that when PW-8 reached at the burning Ghat he waited for the informant who did not arrive. So, after taking the consent of PW-8 the dead-body was brunt. The witnesses examined on behalf of the defence have also made similar statement inasmuch as DW-1 Ramchandar Kewat DW-2 Bhadar Thakur who is a Barsar and DW-5 Radha Prasad have unequivocally stated that the dead-body of Mundrika Devi was burnt after the consent of her brother namely Jit Narayan Sahu. Apart from the fact that the evidence of DWs 1 and 5 have remained unshaken there does not appear any reason that why they will depose falsely. They have also deposed that there was no ill feeling between the deceased and her husband. DWs 1 and 5 have also deposed to the effect that the relationship between the deceased and her in-laws was quite cordial and the dead-body was disposed of because of the abnormal delay in the arrival of the information at the Ghat. It would thus appear that the evidence of PW-9 that his consent was not obtained and when he reached to the Ghat the dead-body had been burnt have belied by the evidence of the several witnesses including the own witnesses of the prosecution. On the basis of the evidence discussed above, I have no doubt to say that PW-8 has deliberately made false statement and it is established from the evidence on record that the dead-body was disposed of after the arrival of PW-8 and after obtaining his consent. Once this conclusion is arrived at the next circumstance which gave rise to doubt suspicion to the informant that his daughter has been done to death also falls on the ground, inasmuch, as it is the case of the prosecution that since the dead-body was disposed of hurriedly without waiting for the arrival of the informant he entertained doubt/suspicion that his daughter might have been killed and in order to conceal the evidence the accused persons disposed of the dead-body but the facts are otherwise as discussed above.
19. Learned defence Counsel pointed out to me that the learned trial Court has relied upon two circumstances; the first being that Mundrika Devi was not examined by lady doctor and secondly that the dead-body was burnt without waiting for the arrival of the informant and on these two circumstances the learned trial Court gave the conclusion that the death of Mundrika Devi was not attributed to any illness rather it was due to the fact that she was mentally tortured by suffocating circumstances surrounding her (para 15). It was submitted that the parties reside in remote village and there was no medical facilities and it is established from the evidence of PW-5 that when he developed trouble in the evening hour on 26.3.99 the appellants as well as the family members immediately arranged a Matador and took the deceased to the nearest Referral Hospital and got her examined by a doctor, who prescribed medicine to her and advised to take the deceased to RMCH for better treatment and on the prescription the doctor has referred the patient to RMCH. Accordingly, the accused-appellants were bringing the deceased to RMCH for treatment but as her condition became serious due to gneanocology trouble, the deceased could not survive and died. It was next submitted that after the death took place the accused-persons did not try to dispose of the dead-body in a surreptitious manner, rather their conduct go to show that they requested PW-4 Jag Mohan Sah to inform the informant about the death of his daughter and there is no dispute about this fact that PW-4 actually went and gave information about the death of the deceased to the informant who sent his son PW-8 along with PW-4 and both came to village Murga and on having learnt that the dead-body has been taken to Nagphani Ghat they went there and it is also established from the evidence of PWs as also the witnesses examined on behalf of the defence that they waited for the arrival of the informant for a considerable period and when he did not reach consent of PW-8 was obtained and the dead-body was burnt. So, both the circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Court for coming to the conclusion about the quality of the appellants stand disproved. It was next submitted that the independent witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution as also the witnesses examined on behalf of the defence who belong to the same village have unequivocally stated that the relationship between the deceased and her husband/in-laws was quite cordial and there was no ill feelings between them. It was pointed out that the deceased was reached to her husband’s place after eight days from the date when her husband returns from Sasural after giving threat. In the normal circumstances no body should dare to send his daughter when such threat is given. But the facts remains that PW-8 left his sister to her in-laws house. PW-8 has admitted that he had visited his sister’s Sasural where he stayed in the night and he also went there in connection of his treatment of dog biting. So, this circumstance go to implicate that the relationship between the deceased and her husband/in-laws were quite cordial and had it been strained PW-8 could not have gone to his sister’s place for the sake of his treatment and stayed in her house. Learned Counsel pointed out that PWs 6 and 8 candidly admitted in their evidence that they had not made any report regarding the demand of dowry by the appellant nor referred the matter to the panchayat which indicate that there was no demand of dowry at the hands of the accused persons.
20. In the instant case which is based purely on circumstantial evidence, it may be noticed that the prosecution has afford to assailant the chain of circumstance consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be fully established with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused which must be of a conclusive nature which should not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. In other words the chain of circumstances should be such that it should show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused only but I find that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. On the contrary, the materials on record as discussed above go to show the innocence of the appellants.
21. On the basis of the above discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find and hold that the prosecution had not proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I hold the appellant not guilty to the charges levelled against them and acquit them of the same. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learnt trial Court are set aside.
22. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellants who are on bail are discharged from the liabilities of the bail-bonds.