Criminal Appeal(S.J.) No.606 of 2008
---
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.3.2008
passed by Shri Ramdhari Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No. 9. Giridih in Sessions Trial No.380 of 2006
------------
Teklal Das -------Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ------- Respondent.
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
-------
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
----
By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 17.3.2008 passed by Shri Ram Dhari
Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.9, Giridih
in Sessions Trial No. 380 of 2006 by which the learned trial court
found the appellant, Teklal Das guilty u/s 304 B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years.
2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of the F.I.R.
given by P.W.4, Nakul Das stating therein that his sister Mina
Devi was married with the accused Teklal Das and there used to
fight between the husband and wife for some family disputes for
which a panchayati was held and from the panchayat, Mina Devi
was taken to her sasural by the accused Teklal Das. He also stated
that in the Holi , the accused Teklal Das came to his house and
asked for Rs.10,000/-. Since he had no money, he could not give
any money to the accused Teklal Das and subsequently on
11.4.2006 he got information that his sister is dead. On the basis of
the said fardbeyan police registered a case u/s 304 B of the I.P.C.
against the accused Chando Das, Gouri Devi and Teklal Das, the
appellant in this case. After investigation police submitted charge
sheet u/s 304B/34 of the I.P.C. Learned C.J.M. after taking
2
cognizance committed the case to the court of Sessions since the
case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
3. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has
examined as many as eleven witnesses. P.W.1, Rohini Devi is the
mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is Hiraman Das, uncle of the
deceased. P.W.3 is Bhola Das who is the cousin brother of the
deceased. P.W.4, Nakul Das is the informant and brother of the
deceased. P.W.5 is Dhapran Das. P.W.6 is Dhokal Kolh. P.W.7 is
Dinesh Ravidas. P.W.8 Mina Devi is another witness having same
name as the deceased.P.W.9 is Guria Devi who has turned hostile
in the court. P.W.10 is Doctor Kamleshwar Prasad who has proved
the Post Mortem report of the deceased and P.W.11 is Surendra
Prasad Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case.
4. After hearing both the parties and after going through the
evidences on record, the learned trial court found the accused
Chando Das and Gauri Devi not guilty and acquitted them from the
charges but convicted the appellant, Teklal Das and sentenced him
as aforesaid.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there is no evidence that after the marriage of the appellant, Teklal
Das with the deceased, Mina Devi, he or his family members ever
demanded dowry or there was any torture given to the deceased for
dowry, rather it has come in the evidence, that Mina Devi was in
love with somebody else and she was not ready to live with the
appellant in his house which was the cause of her death by hanging
herself. Hence the conviction of the appellant u/s 304B read with
section 34 of the I.P.C is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the state has
submitted that although there is no direct evidence that there was
torture for dowry, but there is evidence that the appellant Teklal
Das was demanding Rs.10,000/- from the family members of the
deceased, Mina Devi and she died within seven years of the
marriage and not within 2/3 years of the marriage. Hence the
appellant has rightly been convicted u/s 304 B of the I.P.C. since
he was the husband and it was his duty to look after her.
3
7. After hearing both the parties and going through the
evidences , I find that the informant, P.W.4 Nakul Das neither in
his statement before the police i.e. in the fardbeyan, Ext.2 nor in
his statement before the court, examined as P.W.4, had ever
alleged that Mina Devi was tortured in her sasural after the
marriage for demand of dowry. He has stated in his fardbeyan that
there used to some quarrel between the husband and wife for some
family dispute and once in last holi i.e. in 2006, the appellant had
came to his house and he was demanding Rs.10,000/- from him. In
his cross examination at para 2 he has stated that the accused
Teklal Das had come in Holi along with his sister, Mina Devi and
he was demanding Rs.10,000/- as help to start a new business. So
even the demand of Rs.10,000/- was not for dowry rather it was
asking for some help to start a new business. In para 1 he has also
stated that Rs.10,000/- was demanded for doing business and not
as dowry. In para 2 of his cross examination, he has stated rather
he has accepted that Mina Devi had some love affairs with
somebody and she was not ready to live with the appellant, Teklal
Das and in the last panchayati she was sent to the sasural by force.
Although the mother,P.W.1 Rohini Devi in her cross examination
in para 13 has not accepted that her daughter had love affairs with
somebody else and that she was not ready to go to her sasural. But
P.W.3, Bhola Das who is another cousin brother of the deceased
accepted in cross examination in para 2 that the deceased Mina
Devi was not ready to go to her sasural and her mother sent her by
force in the panchayati. He has further stated that Mina Devi never
made any complaint against her sasural people with regard to
demand of dowry or torture.The prosecution witnesses examined
in the court have stated that there was no demand of dowry from
the appellant, Teklal Das or his parents. P.W.2 Hiraman Das
stated in para 2 of his cross examination that there was no demand
of dowry from the appellant or his parents. P.W. 4 Nakul Das has
already stated that there was no demand of dowry and Rs.10,000/-
was demanded as help for business. P.W.5, Dhapran Das has also
stated that there was no demand of dowry and the occurrence took
place because Mina Devi wanted to marry somebody else. Thus
4
from the evidences adduced by the prosecution, it is very clear that
there was no demand of dowry from the side of the appellant or his
parents rather all the witnesses of the prosecution have stated that
the deceased Mina Devi was in love with somebody else and she
was not ready to live with the appellant and when she was forced
to go with him in the panchayati , then the occurrence took place
and she committed suicide by hanging .
8. Thus, I find no evidence to sustain the conviction of the
appellant u/s 304B/34 of the I.P.C.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.3.2008 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.9, Giridih is
hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges
leveled against him. Since the appellant is in jail custody, he is
directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
[ Pradeep Kumar, J]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 26th February, 2009
A.K.M./NAFR