Brinda Singh and Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as both these appeals have been preferred against the common Judgment of

conviction dated 27.02.2006 and Order of sentence dated 04.03.2006, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra, in Sessions Trial No. 246

of 1994 arising out of G.R. No. 331 of 1989 whereby and where under, all the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under section

304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. The appellant Anandi Devi died during the pendency of

this appeal and her appeal abated vide order dated 09.08.2019 in this appeal consequent upon her death.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant-Brinda Singh is the father-in-law, the appellant Pramod Kumar Singh is the husband and

the appellant Chandra Shekhar Singh, is the elder brother-in-law (Bhaisur) of the deceased-Kiran Devi-who married the appellant-Pramod Kumar

Singh on 22.05.1989 as per Hindu rites and customs and committed suicide on 29.06.1989. It is alleged that at the time of marriage of the deceased-

Kiran Devi, ornaments, clothes were given by her father who is the informant of the case but the appellant-Brinda Singh was not satisfied with the

articles given and time and again the appellant-Brinda Singh used to make complaint and used to pass pinching remarks to the deceased. It is also

alleged that the appellant-Chandra Shekhar Singh who is the Bhaisur of the deceased had also admonished Kiran by saying that they wanted to take

Rs. 1,50,000/- as dowry but they were deceived by being not paid the said amount and exhorted the deceased to bring Cash, Colour T.V., Godrej

Almirah and Hero Honda Motorcycle besides costly Sari as additional dowry, failing which, the deceased would not be allowed to live in her

matrimonial house. Further, after the marriage of the deceased, the Bidai was refused on 24.05.1989 when the uncle of the deceased went to the

matrimonial house of the deceased to bring her to her paternal house. Thereafter, the father of the deceased went for Bidai of the deceased but the

father of the deceased was not allowed to meet her daughter. When for the third time, the brother of the deceased (P.W. 6) went to the matrimonial

house of the deceased, the appellants became ready for the deceased to be taken on Bidai with the condition of fulfilling the said dowry demand.

After coming to her paternal house, the deceased started weeping and stated that it would have been better, had she been married in a poor family

and also stated that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and all accused persons subjected her to cruelty and passed dire remarks about her. The

informant went to school after consoling her daughter and the wife of the informant also went to her paternal house to attend the marriage ceremony

of her nephew and the deceased committed suicide after going to the western side of the roof of the house of the informant by hanging herself.

After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant-accused persons as well as mother-in-law of the deceased

namely-Anandi Devi. After commitment, charge for the offences punishable under section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the

appellant-accused persons. The appellants denied the charge and were put to trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined eight witnesses and also proved the following documents:-

Exhibit-1-Written Report.

Exhibit-2-Exercise Book of Class VIII of the deceased.

Exhibit-3-Suicide Note of the deceased.

Exhibit-4-Postmortem Report of the deceased.

From the side of the defence also two witnesses were examined and the defence also proved two documents being Exhibit-A-Ration Card and

Exhibit-A/1-Voter List.

Out of the 8 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 2-Binay Kumar Singh is the father of the deceased and he is also the informant of the

case. He has stated that the occurrence took place on 29.06.1989. His daughter Kiran Devi committed suicide in his house by hanging herself. Kiran

married the son of the appellant-Brinda Singh namely Pramod Kumar Singh on 22.05.1989. After her marriage, the deceased went to her matrimonial

house on 23.05.1989. After two days, the P.W. 2-Binay Kumar Singh went to take his daughter on Bidai but the appellant-Brinda Singh did not allow

his daughter to come with the P.W. 2. On 25.06.1989, his son went to the house of the deceased and brought her back. After returning back, the

deceased disclosed to the P.W. 2 and other family members that she should not have been married in her in-laws' house rather she should have been

married in a poor family. The deceased also used to tell that her in-laws were demanding articles worth Rs. 40,000/- including motorcycle, almirah and

colour T.V. The deceased was depressed. The P.W. 2 assured to settle the matter after meeting the appellants and went to his school. On

29.06.1989, on the way of the P.W. 2 returning from school he was informed that the deceased died by hanging herself. The villagers brought a

trekker vehicle to take the P.W. 2 and after returning in the same, P.W. 2 saw many people assembled at his house and were crying. Inside the

house, in the courtyard, the dead body of the deceased was kept on a cot. He consulted the Mukhiya and villagers and reported the matter to police.

On being proved by him, the written report was marked as Ext. 1. On being proved by P.W. 2, the copy (notebook) of Class-VIII of her deceased

daughter was marked Ext. 2 and the suicide note left by his deceased daughter has been marked as Ext. 3. P.W. 2 has further stated that the suicide

note was recovered from the blouse of the deceased during the postmortem examination of her dead body but the said suicide note was not given to

him. In his cross-examination, the P.W. 2 has stated that on 25.05.1989 he went to bring back the deceased. The P.W. 2 came to know about the Ext.

3, after 15 days of the death of his deceased-daughter, from the Choukidar. He denied the suggestion that Ext. 3 is a manufactured document and his

daughter was illiterate. He also denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide because of the P.W. 2 and others. Suggestion was also

given to him about not stating certain facts in his statement before the investigation officer, which the P.W. 2 denied.

P.W. 1-Ashok Singh has stated about marriage of the deceased and her in-laws not agreeing of the Bidai ceremony and they were annoyed as

dowry was not given to the deceased-Kiran. P.W. 1 met the deceased one month and one day after her marriage when she came to her paternal

house. The deceased disclosed to the P.W. 1 that her in-laws were torturing her. They were demanding Motorcycle, Colour T.V., Godrej Almirah etc.

and they were taunting her for the same. There was a hue and cry on 29th June about the deceased committing suicide by hanging herself in her

paternal house. The deceased committed suicide because her in-laws were telling to bring dowry articles like Motorcycle, T.V., Godrej etc. and were

telling that without the said articles, she should not come back and the deceased was aware that her father is unable to meet the said dowry demand.

Kiran disclosed that her husband-Pramod Singh, father-in-law-Brinda Singh, Bhaisur and ladies of the house were torturing her. In his cross-

examination, the P.W. 1 has stated that the appellants never demanded dowry in his presence and inter alia the mother of the deceased was present in

the place of occurrence house at the time of commission of suicide by the deceased. Suggestion was also given to him about not stating certain facts

in his statement before the investigation officer, which the P.W. 1 denied.

P.W. 6-Gautam Kumar is the brother of the deceased. He has stated about the marriage of the deceased and the deceased going to her in-laws

house. He has also stated that on 27.05.1989, he went to the in-laws house of the deceased to bring her back. The appellant-Brinda Singh told the

P.W. 6 to send his father as he has failed to fulfill certain demands and Brinda Singh also demanded Motorcycle, Godrej Almirah and Colour T.V. On

that day, they did not allow the P.W. 6 to meet his sister and he returned back. He informed his father that his father is being summoned by the

appellant. His father also went to bring the deceased back to his house, four-five days after 27.05.1989 but again his father was summoned on

25.06.1989. On 25.06.1989, P.W. 6 went to bring back the deceased and brought her back to her paternal house. After reaching the paternal house,

the deceased cried inconsolably and disclosed that as the demand of Motorcycle, Almirah and Colour T.V. has not been met, the appellants were

annoying her. P.W. 6 and others consoled the deceased but she remained depressed and on 29.06.1989 committed suicide by hanging herself. In his

cross-examination, the P.W. 6 has stated that they did not report to police about the said demand. He denied the suggestion that he did not disclosed to

police that Brinda Singh demanded Almirah, Colour T.V. and Motorcycle and the deceased disclosed about the said demand after returning to her

paternal house. Suggestion was also given to him about not stating certain facts in his statement before the investigation officer, which the P.W. 6

denied.

P.W. 7-Renu Devi is the sister of the deceased. She has stated that the deceased committed suicide in her paternal house. She has also stated

about the marriage of the deceased. She has further stated that P.W. 6 went to bring the deceased on Bidai but the deceased was not allowed to

come back to her paternal house and the father-in-law of the deceased namely Brinda Singh, brother-in-law-Chandra Shekhar Singh, husband-Pramod

Singh told the P.W. 6 that Colour T.V., Hero Honda Motorcycle and Godrej Almirah has not been given in dowry and unless the said demand is met,

they will not allow the deceased to be taken to her paternal house on Bidai. P.W. 6 assured them that the said articles will be given. Again P.W. 6

went to the in-laws' house of the deceased and after falling on the feet of the appellants, they allowed the deceased to be taken to her paternal house.

P.W. 7 met the deceased after her coming back to her paternal house and she also disclosed about demand of the aforesaid articles. After returning

from her in-laws' house, the deceased used to be under depression and committed suicide. In her cross-examination, the P.W. 7 has stated that first

the P.W. 6 disclosed to P.W. 7 about the demands and subsequently the deceased also intimated her about the same. Suggestion was also given to her

about not stating certain facts in her statement before the investigation officer, which the P.W. 7 denied.

P.W. 8-Dewanti Devi is the mother of the deceased. She has stated about the marriage of the deceased. The deceased was not allowed to come

back to her paternal house as the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of the deceased were demanding color T.V., Hero Honda motorcycle.

When the deceased came to her paternal house one month after her marriage, she was weeping inconsolably and disclosed that she will not go back

to her matrimonial house as for demand of dowry being not met; she used to be tortured there. The deceased told P.W. 8 that her father-in-law used

to say that the father of the deceased has given little dowry. In her cross-examination, P.W. 8 has stated that from her Samdhi meaning thereby the

appellant-Brinda Singh and her son-in-law meaning thereby the husband of the deceased used to demand dowry. Before the marriage, the demand of

dowry was made but she did not institute any case. Suggestion was also given to her about not stating certain facts in her statement before the

investigation officer, which the P.W. 8 denied.

P.W. 5-Dr. N.N. Mandal has stated that on 01.07.1989 he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased a 18 years old

lady. According to his opinion the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia because of hanging. The time elapsed since the death is 42 hours. On

being proved by him, the postmortem report has been marked as Ext. 4. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there was mark of depression

around the neck obliquely placed was the ligature mark due to hanging.

P.W. 3-Parduman Singh and P.W. 4-Yugal Singh are the inquest witnesses. Both of them were declared hostile as they did not support the case

of the prosecution. P.W. 4 identified his signature on the inquest report. It is pertinent to mention here that it has been mentioned that the signature on

the inquest report has been marked as Ext. 4 but because of apparent over sight on the part of the trial court; the postmortem report on being proved

by the P.W. 5 has also been marked as Ext. 4 instead of Ext. 5. In his cross-examination, P.W. 3 has stated that the deceased was illiterate.

Ext. 3 is the suicidal note of the deceased wherein she has stated that she has committed suicide because of taunt, demand and repeated

threatening by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and because of which she has no courage to stay in her in-laws house and she has begged excuse

also.

After closure of the evidence of the prosecution statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants were recorded, wherein they have taken

the plea of denial of the evidence put forth against them and they have stated that P.W. 2 took the jewelries from the deceased against her will

because of which she has committed suicide in her paternal house and the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.

From the side of the defence, D.W. 1-Jai Karan Singh has stated his house is situated in front of the paternal house of Kiran Devi and the P.W. 2

is his cousin brother. He has stated that the P.W. 2 or P.W. 8 has never complained to the D.W. 1 that the in-laws of the deceased are creating

disturbance in her Bidai. On the date of the death of the deceased, her parents were not in their house. On 26.06.1989 he met the deceased but the

deceased did not make any complain. On 27.06.1989 the parents of the deceased, her paternal aunts and sisters were quarreling amongst them and

D.W. 1 upon reaching there came to know that they were demanding jewelries from the deceased which were given to her by her in-laws but the

deceased was not ready to give the said jewelries. The jewelries were demanded to meet the repayment of loan incurred and the appellants have been

falsely implicated in this case. In his cross-examination, he has stated that from three generation the family members of P.W. 2 and D.W. 1 are

residing separately.

D.W. 2-Maheshwari Singh has stated that the deceased was known to him. His house is near the house of the parents of the deceased. On

27.06.1989, D.W. 1 was at his door at about 6-6:30 am. He heard the sound of crying from the house of P.W. 2. On hearing the hue and cry, he went

to the house of the P.W. 2 and saw that the deceased was crying. On being enquired, the deceased stated that a day prior to the same, she came

from her in-laws house and the P.W. 2 was demanding the jewelries which were given by her in-laws. The deceased was refusing to give the said

jewelries. P.W. 2 and her paternal uncle were pressurizing the deceased-Kiran to give her said jewelries. P.W. 2 never disclosed to D.W. 2 that the

in-laws of the deceased were demanding dowry. He has further stated that because of the said demand of jewelries, the deceased committed suicide

and P.W. 2 has instituted this false case upon the appellants. In his cross-examination, D.W. 2 has stated that the appellant-Brinda Singh has brought

him to adduce evidence in court.

The learned trial court, after considering the evidence in the record convicted the four accused persons of the case including Anandi Devi and

sentenced them as already indicated above. Anandi Devi died during the pendency of the case and after receipt of the report about the death of

Anandi Devi from the Superintendent of Police, Chatra, the appeal abated against her.

It is submitted by Mr. Binod Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that there has

been a delay of three days in receiving the FIR in the court of A.C.J.M. as though the date of FIR is 30.06.1989 yet the same was received in the

court of A.C.J.M. on 03.07.1989. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned court below failed to take note of the

fact that several independent witnesses have not been examined in this case though they have been mentioned as witnesses in the charge sheet and

this has been done to suppress the truth and prosecution has deliberately examined only highly interested witnesses being the family members of P.W.

It is then submitted that because of demand of the jewelries by the P.W. 2 and his family members from the deceased given to her by her in-laws,

the deceased committed suicide. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that had the reason of demand of dowry being the real

cause of her death, there could not have been an occasion for the deceased-Kiran to commit suicide in her paternal house four days after reaching the

paternal house as either she could have committed suicide just after reaching her paternal house or she could have committed suicide in her

matrimonial house itself where she has ample opportunity to commit suicide. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the

testimonies of both the defence witnesses is trustworthy and nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimonies, wherein

they have stated about the real cause of death of the deceased. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that though the

attentions of the witnesses have been drawn at length vis-Ã -vis their testimonies made before the Investigation Officer yet non-examination of the

Investigation Officer of the case has prejudiced the defence. It is then submitted that Ext. 3 is a manufactured document and it is highly unlikely that

the P.W. 2 could not have known about the existence of such a suicidal note till fifteen days after the occurrence, as it is common knowledge that the

family members of the deceased accompanying the dead body to the postmortem house and had any such document been recovered from her dead

body the same must have been intimated to P.W. 2 immediately at the time of postmortem which was conducted a couple of days after her death. It is

further submitted that non-examination of the Investigation Officer has deprived the defense from their opportunity to verify the false and fabricated

document which has been marked as Ext. 3. It is next submitted that the case of the prosecution is highly improbable in the absence of any evidence

of any specific manner of the torture of the deceased or any evidence of any injury sustained by her in her matrimonial house. Hence, it is submitted

that the appellants be acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them the benefit of

doubt.

Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution witnesses

being the P.W. 2, P.W. 1, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have categorically stated about the demand of dowry by the appellants and there is no dispute

that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise then under natural circumstances. It is then submitted that the materials thus

available in record is sufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted

that the learned court below having rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced them for the minimum prescribed term, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in record, this court finds the testimonies of defence

witnesses being the D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 to be consistent and trustworthy and nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their

testimonies. Their version is consistent with the defence plea taken by the appellants-accused persons in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

that the deceased committed suicide as she was not ready and inclined to give the jewelries presented to her by her in-laws to her father (P.W. 2).

In a criminal case, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts before the accused is

asked to prove his defence. It is also settled proposition of law that whenever there are two views possible, the view which favours the innocence of

the accused is to be accepted by the Court and that the defence of the accused is to be weighed on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the said settled principle of law in the judgment ofK . Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan

[MANU/SC/8009/2007 : (2008) 1 SCC 258] paragraph-14 of which reads as under

It is furthermore not in doubt or dispute that whereas the standard of proof so far as the prosecution is concerned is proof of guilt beyond all

reasonable doubt; the one on the accused is only mere preponderance of probability.

To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde [(2008) 4 SCC 54] wherein it

was observed in paragraph 32 and 34 as under:

Xxxxxx Standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution a criminal case is different. Xxxxxxxx

Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence

on the part of an accused is ""preponderance of probabilities"". Xxxxxxxx

It is apparent that though the attention of the witnesses have been drawn in their respective cross-examination to their testimonies made in their

examination in chief vis-Ã -vis the statement made before the Investigation Officer but the non-examination of Investigation Officer without any

plausible reason has certainly caused prejudice to the defence. So far as the Ext. 3 is concerned which is allegedly the suicide note of the deceased,

the same is not free from doubt. It is highly unlikely that such a suicide note could not be seen at the time of the death and not even till after fifteen

days of the death of the deceased though allegedly the same was recovered at the time of the postmortem of the dead body which took place a couple

of days after the death of the deceased. The non-examination of Investigation Officer has certainly caused prejudiced to the defence regarding

introduction of this document in evidence and also to raise objection about the genuineness of the said document as also to raise the question as to

where the document was till fifteen days after the death of the deceased and how the Chowkidar could know about the same and why the said

document was not confronted by the Investigation Officer to the P.W. 2 or any of his family members to ascertain as to whether in fact, the same is

in the handwriting of the deceased or not. Thus in this case the defence has certainly been prejudiced by the non-examination of the Investigation

Officer. Moreover there is no evidence in the record as to the manner of torture perpetrated upon the deceased. There is no allegation of her ever

sustaining any physical injury or any physical assault having ever made upon her. In this backdrop the delay of three days in the FIR being sent to the

court is certainly a factor which creates a doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered

view that this is a fit case where the appellants be acquitted by giving them the benefits of doubt as the prosecution has failed to establish the charge

against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of the discussion made above, all the three appellants namely Chandra Shekhar Singh, Pramod Kumar Singh and Brinda Singh are

acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them the benefit of doubt.

All the three appellants namely Chandra Shekhar Singh, Pramod Kumar Singh and Brinda Singh are in custody. They are directed to be released

from custody unless their detention is required in connection with any other case.

In the result, these appeals are allowed.

In view of the disposal of these appeals, the interlocutory applications are dismissed being infructuous.

Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.