Ramji Sao and Others vs State of Bihar

A.K. Prasad, J.—This appeal on the behest of the three appellants is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.1989 in S.T. No. 194 of 1987 passed by Sri Paras Nath Sinha, 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Giridih, whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no separate sentence has been awarded for the offences under Sections 498A and 201 of Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, as made out in the fardbeyan is as under:

The deceased, Meena Devi, 17-years old daughter of the informant (Lekho Sao), P.W. 8 was married to accused-appellant Baso Sao (Basudeo Sao) about three years ago. The appellants, Ramji Sao and Pyari Devi (Pyassi Devi) are the parents-in-law of the deceased. The deceased mostly lived with the appellants at her matrimonial home. She used to visit her parental home 2/3 times in a year for 10/ 15 days. On the eve of the last ''Magh Dashmi'' the informant went to the house of the appellants for the ''Bidai'', but they refused to perform her ''Bidai''. Even then she went to her ''Naihar'' in the company of her father-informant. At her parental home, she disclosed that her husband, parents-in-law and Gotni immensely ill-treated her and she expressed her un-willingness to return to her matrimonial home. On 14th Magh, which was Chouth, the appellant-Ramji Sao, father-in-law of the deceased, came to the house of the informant to take back the deceased, but the informant did not perform the ''Bidai'', as it was an in-auspicious day. However, on 5th Falgun the informant took his daughter-Meena Devi to her Sasural. Her mother-in-law refused to keep her and assaulted her by holding her locks. Ultimately, on the informant''s pursuasion, her parents-in-law kept her in their house. Her husband and in-laws always demanded a bicycle from the informant but he was unable to fulfil the demand. Due to this reason, they used to harass and torture her in various ways.

On Friday last (i.e., on 27th of February, 1987) around 8 a.m., the appellant-Baso Sao came to the house of the informant and conveyed that on the previous evening Meena Devi had gone to a temple to worship Lord Shiva at Kisko and she did not return home, whereafter the informant started searching for her at the place of bis relatives, but her whereabouts could not be known. On the following Saturday, the informant went to Kisko Hat and heard rumours that there was a dead body in a field to the South of Hat and one Hari Sao confirmed that corpse was of his daughter whereupon, around 2 P.M., he visited the spot and found the dead body of deceased Meena Devi with burns and blisters on different parts of the body and with marks of flow of blood through nose and right ear. Some Chowkidars arrived to keep watch on the dead body, but in the night brick-bats were thrown on them to scare them away. The appellants did not visit the spot. The informant suspected that the deceased had been murdered by the appellants for the reason of non-fulfilment of the dowry demand and because she had gone to her parental home without their consent.

On 1.3.1987, around 9.30 a.m., fardbeyan (Exhibit 4) of the informant was recorded by the Officer-in-charge of Deori P.S. at village Kisko near Middle School. On this basis, the present case was instituted and a formal First Information Report (Exhibit 5) was drawn up. The Officer-in-charge, Deori P.S. assumed investigation of the case, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased (Exhibit 3 is the inquest report) and sent the dead body of Meena Devi to Sadar Hospital, Giridih, for postmortem examination and after completion of investigation charge sheet was laid in Court against the accused persons.

The case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions.

The main defence is of innocence and false implication on mere suspicion.

At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case. Out of them P.W. 7 (Sunil Kumar Singh) is a formal witness. The chief-examination of P.W 4 (Lekho Sao), the informant, was recorded, but his evidence was expunged as he did not appear for cross-examination. P.W. 1 (Dr. Ramjas Ram) held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Meena Devi. P.W. 3 (Ruplal Sah) and P.W. 5 (Mathura Yadav) are the witnesses of the inquest report (Exhibit 3). P.W. 2 (Narain Sao) is the uncle of the deceased; wehreas P.W. 6 is Hardeo Paswan.

The defence, on the other hand, did not examine any witness.

On consideration of the evidence and materials on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as stated above, for the following reasons:

(i) at the relevant point of time the deceased was living at the matrimonial home with the appellants;

(ii) within three years of the marriage, the deceased had died of multiple burn injuries;

(iii) the appellant Baso Sao had conveyed the informant on 27th that the deceased Meena Devi had gone to worship Lord Shiva in the temple at Kisko and had not returned but he did not join the informant and others in her search and the appellants (Ramji Sao and Baso Sao) were not seen at the spot where the dead body of the deceased had been found;

(iv) there was evidence of P.W. 2 that the appellant (Pyari Devi) used to torture the deceased for not bringing bi-cycle from her parents in dowry and for going to her parental home without consent.

A Bench of this Court by earlier order had directed the Trial Court for recording additional evidence of some of the important witnesses namely, Lekho Sao, Smt. Chinta Devi, Narayan Sao, Sukar Rai, Smt. Mano Devi, Jago Kumhar, Jagdish Kumhar, Manoranjan Prasad (Sub-Inspector of Police / the then Officer-in-charge of Deori P.S.) and Sub-Inspector of Police, N.K Singh, u/s 391 of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the Trial Court after recording additional evidence of P.W. 8 (Lekho Sao), the informant, P.W. 9 (Sukar Rai), and P.W. 10 (Jagdish Kumhar) only sent it to this Court.

Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that the circumstantial evidence is in complete to connect the appellants with the murder of the deceased. He further submitted that the motive suggested for the murder of the deceased by the appellants is inadquate and there is no evidence to suggest that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants near Kisko or that they were seen carrying her dead body to the spot from where it was recovered. He further submitted that at any rate, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment.

There is no direct evidence of the murder of the deceased. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. We may proceed to discuss the circumstantial evidence which emerge from the evidence on record. It is admitted fact that the appellant-Baso Sao is the husband of the deceased Meena Devi, whereas the appellants-Ramji Sao and Pyari Devi are her parents-in-law. It has come in evidence of P.W. 8 (Lekho Sao), the informant and father of the deceased, that she was married to Baso Sao about three years ago to the alleged occurrence. This fact has not been disputed by the defence.

It has next to be considered, whether the death of the deceased was suicidal or homicidal.

P.W 1 (Dr. Ramjas Ram) who was then posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital at Giridih has testified to the effect that on 1.3.1987 he performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Meena Devi and found burn injuries covering whole chest, legs, abodomen, face, neck, both thighs, both the upper limbs, skin deep at various places with multiple blisters. On dissection, lungs were found congested, heart right side contained blood and left side was empty, liver was congested, stomach was empty and mucosa was normal, kidney and spleen were also congested, uterus, scalp and brain were normal. He has opined that death was caused due to shock as a result of the burn injuries, which were ante-mortem. P.W. 1 has further stated that the time elapsed since the death was within 48 hours of the post-mortem examination. He has stated in his cross-examination that no cloth piece was found stuck to the burn wounds and there was no external material in the burn wounds. The post-mortem report of the deceased is Exhibit-1 and is in the pen of P.W. 1. The medical evidence establishes beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was due to burn wounds.

One may now come to the evidence about the place of recovery of the dead body of Meena Devi and surrounding circumstances thereof. It has come in the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 that the dead body was found near Middle School, Kisko. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 have stated that this spot is about 1/2 km. off Kisko temple/ Hat. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 8 have deposed that there were burns, blisters and blood marks on the person of the deceased, but the garments on her person were not burnt. The Doctor (P. W. 1) too had found burn wounds on her dead body. The statement of PW 5 (Mathura Yadav) that he saw no wound on the person of the deceased is obviously incorrect. It has been noticed above that no piece of cloth was found stuck to the burn injuries. It has come in evidence of PW 8 that it is a solitary place. There is no evidence that any sign of burning or struggle was found at the place where the dead body had been found. The evidence and circumstances make it abundantly clear that she did not commit suicide and that she had been burnt to death elsewhere and her dead body had been kept/abandoned at the place from where it was recovered.

It has come in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 that on Maha Shivratri day a Mela is held at Kisko temple which attracts the devotees from the near and distant places and on the fateful day in the evening there was heavy rain and storm. On these premises, it was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased might have suffered injuries when trapped in such rough weather. This contention does not appeal to reason. It is not possible that the deceased would have suffered multiple burn wounds when caught in such weather and that too when it was raining heavily.

The appellants are residents of Kulumbad. The evidence shows that the house of the appellants is at appreciable distance of some kilometres from Kisko temple. It was expected that the appellant (Baso Sao) or any other male/female member of the family would have accompanied the deceased from her matrimonial home to the Kisko temple, which is at a distant place, to enable her to perform Puja. But they did not accompany her. It is an un-natural conduct on their part.

It has been elicited in cross-examination of P.W. 5 (Mathura Yadav), resident of different village-Dhuria that the wife of appellant-Basu Sao with her village women folk had visited Kisko temple on Maha Shivratri day. P.W. 9, who is resident of Kisko, has stated that on Maha Shivratri day he was at his home and on that day the daughter-in-law (deceased) of appellant-Ramji Sao had come to Shiv Mandir. PW 9 has been declared hostile by the prosecution. It is not believable that PWs 5 and 9 who are of different villages could have known or identified the deceased among the devotees, who had visited the temple on the fateful day. No women folk of village-Kulumbad has been examined in the case to prove that the deceased had in fact been to Shiv temple at Kisko on the fateful day.

PW 8 (Lakho Sao), father of the deceased has testified to the effect that in the preceding month of Magh, he had visited the house of the appellants for the Bidai of his daughter (deceased) but the appellants refused to perform her Bidai and even then his daughter came to her parental home in his company against their wishes. He has further stated that at her parental home she disclosed to him that her husband and in-laws often quarrel with her on the pretext that she was of dark compexion and issueless and they demand a bi-cycle in dowry and that her husband was ready to contract a second marriage. He has further stated that in the month of Magh, on the day of Chouth, the appellant-Ramji Sao, had visited his house for taking his daughter-in-law back to her matrimonial home, but he did not agree to it as it was an in-auspicious day and subsequently on Panchami day he himself took his daughter (the deceased) to her Sasural, but her husband and in-laws were not ready to keep her and her mother-in-law (appellant-Pyari Devi) slapped her by catching hold of her locks in his presence and he pursuaded them and left his daughter at her matrimonial home. He has further stated that his deceased-daughter was unwilling and unhappy to go to her Sasural. There is allegation of dowry demand against the appellants in the fardbeyan itself (Exhibit-4). It has been further stated in the fardbeyan that the appellants were annoyed with the deceased because she had gone to her parental home against their wishes.

PW 2 (uncle of the deceased) has also stated that the deceased-niece had complained to him that she was ill-treated and harassed by her husband and in-laws and bi-cycle was demanded by them in dowry. He has further stated that the deceased was not willing to go to her matrimonial home due to ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws. The testimony of PW 2 corroborated the testimony of PW 8 on the point of dowry demand made by the appellants and the complaint about it made by the deceased. The fardbeyan (Exhibit-4) in substance corroborates the testimony of PW 1 on the point of dowry demand and ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellants.

The statement of PW 8 that the appellants were not ready to keep the deceased or that appellant (Pyari Devi) had ill-treated and assaulted her in his presence has not been challenged in his cross-examination. PWs 2 and 8 are quite consistent in their evidence on the point of dowry demand and ill-treatment of the deceased by her husband and in-laws. PW 8 is straight-forward in his cross-examination when he says that his son-in-law (appellant Baso Sao) did not make direct demand of dowry from him. There is no plausible reason to discard the testimony of PWs 2 and 8 on the point. There was motive for the murder of the deceased by the accused persons.

The conduct of appellant (Pyari Devi) when she had slapped /assaulted the deceased even in presence of the informant shows that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the appellants.

It is not disputed that at the relevant time the deceased was living with the appellants at the matrimonial house. Her death was caused by burns within seven years of her marriage. Her dead body with the burn injuries was found abandoned at a distant place from the house of the appellants. There is evidence of PWs 2 and 8 that the deceased was treated with cruelty and harassed for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. The Trial Court has found the appellants guilty for the charge u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Having given anxious consideration to the matter, I find no reason to disagree with this finding of the Court below.

This is a case of dowry death. It is to be presumed that the accused persons caused the death of the deceased for non-fulfilment of the dowry demand. The defence has failed to place any cogent material to displace this presumption. It is true that it has come in evidence of PWs 2 and 8 that on the following morning of Mahashivratri day, the appellant (Baso Sao) had visited their house to convey that on the Mahashivratri day, the deceased had gone to offer Puja in the temple at Kisko, but she did not return home and went away. There is no reliable evidence on record to suggest that in fact the deceased had gone to the temple on the fateful day to worship. The defence has led no evidence to show that in fact the accused persons had searched for the deceased. None of the accused had gone to the spot where the dead body had been found. It is not the defence case that the appellant (Baso Sao), the husband and protector of the deceased, or the appellant-Ramji Sao had given any report to the police station about the alleged missing of the deceased. In the circumstances, it can be inferred that on the next morning the accused (Baso Sao) by giving information about the disappearance of the deceased to PWs 2 and 8 wanted to shield himself as well as the other accused persons.

The I.O. has not examined by the prosecution in this case. It has been urged by the appellant''s Counsel that this affects the prosecution case adversely and no conviction can be sustained in absence of examination of the I.O. There is no contradiction whatsoever on material points in the evidence of PWs 2 and 8 at the trial vis-a-vis their statements at the investigation. The appellants have failed to show that prejudice was caused to them due to the non-examination of the I.O. Hence, the failure of the prosecution to examine the I.O. does not adversely affect the prosecution case. This contention, therefore, is without substance and fails.

In view of the discussions made above, it is established that the appellants are liable for the offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, the charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and not u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code was framed. In the charge u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code framed against the accused persons, it is set out that the accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty and coerced her and her relatives to meet unlawful demand of bi-cycle. The evidence led by the prosecution at the trial was to the effect that there was demand of bi-cycle in dowry and due to its non-fulfilment she had been done to death. The question put to the accused persons in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was that in a greed for dowry they have caused the death of the deceased. The defence was aware of the charge of causing death of the deceased due to non-fulfilment of the dowry demand. No prejudice has been caused to the defence due to non-framing of charge u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code is a minor offence compared to one u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The conviction of the appellants and sentence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustained, instead they are convicted u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the appellants u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed.

In the result, the conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. Instead they are convicted u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, each, thereunder. Their conviction under Sections 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code are confirmed. The appellants are directed to surrender to their bails to serve out the remaining part of the sentence in accordance with law. The Trial Court is directed to take effective steps to secure their apprehension for serving out the sentence in accordance with law. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.