Shiv Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar

Gopal Prasad, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 304B of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. He has, further, been convicted under Section 201/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of rupees five thousand and in case of payment of default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It has been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

The prosecution case as alleged in the first information report by the informant, Ram Balak Choudhary, the uncle of the victim-deceased Dazy Devi the victim-deceased was married with Shiv Kumar Singh, son of Gopal Singh, resident of village Basudeopur, P.S. Muffasil, district Begusarai, in the year 2004. It is, further, alleged that since then the husband, Shiv Kumar Singh, father-in-law, Gopal Singh, mother-in-law, Laddu Devi, wife of Gopal Singh, Jata Shanker Singh, bhainsur of the victim-deceased and Usha Devi, wife of Jata Shanker Singh and gotni of the victim-deceased, always used to assault, not provided food and repeated the demand to bring rupees fifty thousand from her father else she will be killed. The dispute and demand was mediated by the informant, Ram Balak Choudhary, Sanjay Choudhary, Bablu Choudhary by going to the sasural of the victim-deceased. The further case is that their demand immediately fulfilled. It is, further, alleged that in the night of 11.07.2010 at 12 in the mid night, the informant received a telephone intimating that Dazy Devi the niece of the informant has been murdered and the dead body has been disposed off in the river. In the morning the informant along with other five persons went to Basudeopur and found that the house of the victim-deceased was locked and the inmates of the house were absconding. On the written report of the informant, Ram Balak Choudhary, an endorsement was made to register case, so Muffasil P.S. Case No. 299 of 2010, dated 12.07.2010, under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Penal Code lodged with a direction to Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Siya Ram Prasad Yadav to investigate the first information report lodged and the investigation proceeded.

During investigation the investigating officer recorded the further statements of the informant, went to the place of occurrence along with the informant and inspected the place of occurrence, the house of Gopal Singh, situated in village Basudeopur, recorded the boundaries of the house and, thereafter, proceeded to search out the dead body of the victim-deceased. On 13.07.2010 the dead body was recovered two kilometer north-east on the bank of river and in the waist of the dead body sand was tied with gunny bag. The dead body was identified by the informant, the brother of the victim-deceased and other witnesses. The inquest report was prepared, the dead body chalan was prepared and was sent for post mortem. From the inquest report, it is apparent that from the uterus of the victim-deceased a part of the body of the child has come out. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses and witnesses supported the prosecution case regarding the marriage having been solemnized in 2004 and there was demand and subjecting cruelty and for non-fulfillment of the demand the victim-deceased was done to death. The investigating officer after investigation submitted the charge sheet, cognizance was taken, case committed to the Court of sessions where the charges were framed against accused persons.

After framing of the charge nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 is Bablu Choudhary, the brother of the victim-deceased, who has supported the prosecution case regarding the marriage of the victim-deceased with Shiv Kumar Singh about six years back and he got information about the death of the victim-deceased and the dead body having been disposed off and then he went to the sasural after information along with his uncle, Ram Balak Choudhary. P.W. 2 is Chandan Kumar, the cousin brother of the victim-deceased, supported the prosecution case regarding the marriage of the victim-deceased and she was done to death and the dead body was disposed off in the river. He has, further, developed the prosecution case that about eight days prior to the occurrence, the accused persons demanded rupees fifty thousand as dowry and then he proceeded to the house of his sister along with his phupha (uncle) and asked for time about 20-25 days to arrange the money and it is further alleged that the victim-deceased was always subjected to cruelty by beating/assaulting and 20-25 days were yet to be completed, the victim-deceased was done to death. P.W. 3 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the victim-deceased and found that there was decomposition of body with peeling of the skin at places and bled formation, tongue protruded, eye ball bulged, uterus bulged and came out with one male dead child of about 7-8 months, child''s face was swollen.

He found ante mortem injury. The skin of face and chest were blacken. On dissection of the chest muscles were found construed and on, further, dissection fracture of sternum at upper part in neck was found. There were blood clots in trachea. Injuries seems to be caused by hard and blunt substance and death is due to asphyxia, caused by smothering and compressing of chest, rigour mortis were present in all the limbs, the time elapsed since death was 36-40 hours.

P.W. 4 is Naveen Kumar Singh, who is son of the sister of the victim-deceased, deposed about the marriage solemnized in 2004 and the victim-deceased was done to death in 2010 by her husband, bhainsur, father-in-law and mother-in-law for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and he got information about death from Ram Balak Choudhary. He has stated nothing in his examination-in-chief about subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand though stated that in cross-examination that in 2009, he learnt about the demand of dowry. P.W. 5 is Umesh Kumar, the cousin brother of the victim-deceased. He has deposed about the demand of rupees fifty thousand though he has deposed that victim-deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand and has deposed that last time he met her in her sasural, but, she did not ask her to follow her at naiher as the brother and the uncle of the victim-deceased were also there. P.W. 6 is Sanjay Choudhary, the cousin brother of the victim-deceased and he has also stated about the demand of rupees fifty thousand and the victim-deceased done to death for non-fulfillment of the demand. However, this witness has stated in cross-examination that he met with the victim-deceased about ten days prior to her death in sasural, but, he did not find any sign of assault on her body. P.W. 7 is Ram Balak Choudhary, the informant and has deposed that marriage solemnized in 2004 and the victim-deceased was done to death on 11.07.2010 in the night and then he went and searched out the dead body which was found at the bank of the river. However, this witness stated that Dazy Devi disclosed about the assault by her husband for non-fulfillment of the demand of rupees fifty thousand not being fulfilled by the naiher people. However, this witness in his cross-examination stated that he saw the victim about three years prior to the occurrence and at the time of death she was carrying pregnancy of 7-8 months. P.W. 8 is the investigating officer, Siya Saran Prasad Yadav. P.W. 9 is Sheela Devi, the mother of the deceased and has stated that she died after six years of marriage in sasural and the accused persons killed her for non-fulfillment of the demand and has stated that 10-15 days prior to the occurrence Sanjay Choudhary, Umesh Choudhary, Bablu Choudhary, Chandan Kumar and Ram Balak Choudhary had been to the sasural of Dazy Devi and she identified the dead body of Dazy Devi in the hospital.

Three witnesses have also been adduced by the defence, who are D.W. 1 Anil Ram, D.W. 2 Ashok Rai and D.W. 3 Umesh Mishra and their evidences are to the effect that Dazy Devi having good relation with her husband and in-laws and she died out of pain in her heart and her last rites was performed.

The defence of the accused persons that the victim-deceased died out of heart attack or the illness of the heart and after her death the information was given to her naiher people and the prosecution party participated in sharadh. The, further, defence set up by the accused persons that the dead body of Dazy Devi was not recovered, but, a false case has been instituted by identifying the dead body of a different lady and neither the photographs of the dead body was taken nor proved and a false case has been instituted for non-fulfillment of the demand by the informant to the tune of rupees five lakhs.

Two witnesses have also been examined as Court witnesses, who are C.W. 1 Ramashray Singh and C.W. 2 Shashi Devi. C.W. 1 deposed that the marriage solemnized in 2004 and, thereafter, Dazy Devi went to sasural and after one and half months the accused persons used to assault her for non-fulfillment of demand of rupees fifty thousand and a motorcycle and the victim-deceased was done to death on 11.07.2010 and the dead body was recovered from Burhi Gandak river. However, this witness in cross-examination stated that after marriage of Dazy Devi, she went to sasural. She lived there and she has only come ones to her naiher for one day. C.W. 2 Shashi Devi the niece of victim-deceased has stated that after the marriage Dazy Devi used to live in sasural and she was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand and when on hulla she learnt about the murder of Dazy Devi though she has not stated that she went to her sasural about six months prior to her death and on that day the sasural abused the victim-deceased.

The trial Court taking into consideration the evidences of the witnesses and considering the submissions made by the parties hold that the victim-deceased was physically assaulted and tortured for non-fulfillment of demand of rupees fifty thousand as dowry till few days before her death and the cause of death, as per the oral as well as medical evidences established is unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and held that since before the death she was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand, hence, prosecution proved the offence under Section 304B of the Penal Code, convicted the appellant and sentenced as mentioned above.

The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the order of conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial Court on the ground that the appellant has falsely been implicated. It has been contended that the death of the victim-deceased has not been established, the prosecution has not mentioned in his first information report about the pregnancy of the victim-deceased and even in evidence they have deposed that they learned about the pregnancy of the victim after the death, as per the evidence of P.W. 7 in paragraph 9. It has, further, been contended that the dead body recovered was not the dead body of the victim-deceased as the dead body recovered shows that a male child has come out from the uterus of the lady having a pregnancy of about 7-8 months and it has been contended that had the victim-deceased been pregnant it must have been mentioned in the first information report lodged by the informant and the false case has been instituted on the basis of the dead body found of different lady in the river. It has, further, been contended that one of the most important ingredients for the offence under Section 304B of the Penal Code is to establish that soon before the death the victim was subjected to cruelty and it is contended that the evidence regarding this fact has not been proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The evidence regarding this fact is most fluctuating and not the believable piece of evidence and this story of subjected to cruelty soon before the death has only been cooked-up and is not reliable to record the conviction under Section 304B of the Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the State, however, contends that the victim-deceased was done to death and the dead body disposed off and prosecution after learning about the occurrence reported the matter to the police, make out a search and with the help of police the dead body of the victim-deceased was recovered, the inquest report prepared, the witnesses identified the dead body, but, the said identification has not been challenged and, further, the medical report suggests the death by asphyxia caused by smothering and compressing the chest itself indicates that the death is in suspicious circumstance and, further, there is evidence that soon before death the victim was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and non-fulfillment of the demand within seven years of the marriage, hence, the ingredients for offence under Section 304B of the Penal Code is established.

In view of the respective submissions, I proceed to consider the evidence in the light of the submissions made by the parties. However, to proceed further, it would be proper to look into the ingredients for offence under Section 304B of the Penal Code. However, from perusal of Section 304B of the Penal Code, it is apparent that to record the conviction under Section 304B of the Penal Code against a person, the prosecution is obliged to prove (a) that the death of the victim-deceased was caused by burn or bodily injury or had occurred other than the normal circumstance (b) such death should have been occurred within seven years of marriage (c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of the husband (d) such cruelty or harassment occurred for or in relation to or in connection with demand of dowry and (e) such cruelty or harassment of the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death.

The word "soon before the death" has not been defined whether it is few hours or few days or few weeks or few months or few years. However, in the judicial pronouncement of this Court as well as the Apex Court no hard and fast rule set the issue, but, at rest there is no time limit, but, it depends on facts and circumstances, there must have to be a nexus between the cruelty and the death of the victim.

Section 113B of the Evidence Act, however, provides a mandatory presumption of law for dowry death, but, before presuming the dowry death, it must be proved that soon before the death the victim had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with of demand of dowry. Now, in view of these established provisions and the ingredients, I proceed to consider the evidence.

Prosecution case, as alleged in the first information report, the victim-deceased, Dazy Devi, was married to Shiv Kumar Singh in 2004 and there is allegation that the accused persons used to assault and subjected to cruelty and they repeatedly asked to bring rupees fifty thousand from her uncle else she will be done to death and in connection with this demand a mediation was made and Ram Balak Choudhary, Bablu Choudhary and Sanjay Choudhary went and make them understand and it is alleged that the victim-deceased was done to death on 11.07.2010 for non-fulfillment of demand. On the fardbeyan the first information report lodged, the investigation proceeded and charge sheet submitted on which cognizance taken and, subsequently, after commitment, the charge framed, witnesses examined and the trial Court convicted the appellant. However, so far the ingredients for offence is concerned, the witnesses have deposed that the marriage has been solemnized in 2004 and the victim-deceased was done to death in 2010, hence, the marriage has not been challenged. So far the occurrence is concerned, the death alleged to have been taken place in 2010 though it is not challenged that the victim-deceased has not died though the case of the prosecution that she has been done to death and has been murdered. However to the contrary, the defence has been set up that victim-deceased died out of heart trouble and she was cremated after her death. However, though the defence of the accused is that the death by heart attack or heart disease, but, no doctor has been examined to prove the defence. It is true that conviction can not be recorded on the basis that defence has not established its case and it is the prosecution who has to establish the case by cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. However, the prosecution has brought the case that they learnt about the occurrence and they went to sasural of the victim-deceased and there they found the victim-deceased missing from her sasural and the house of the accused was locked and the accused persons were absconding and then matter was reported to the police on the basis of which the first information report lodged and the investigation proceeded and during investigation the prosecution party also made out a search along with the police and the police recovered a dead body in the river and said dead body was brought, the inquest report prepared, which has been marked as Exhibit 2. The dead body was identified by the witnesses, but, the identification of the witnesses has not been challenged. However, the prosecution has stated that the dead body was taken, it was photographed and they claimed to have identified the dead body and even the inquest report bear the signatures of Ram Balak Choudhary and Chandan Choudhary and, further, the post mortem examination by the doctor revealed that the death of the victim-deceased was in suspicious circumstance as the cause of death is asphyxia caused by smothering and compression of the chest. However, the next part of the ingredients to be proved is subjecting cruelty for demand of dowry and, further, the fact that soon before death the victim was subjected to cruelty. However, in the first information report though there is allegation of demand and subjecting cruelty since the date of occurrence, but, there is no specific allegation regarding the fact that soon before death the victim was subjected to cruelty. The informant, Ram Balak Choudhary, is a witness. The evidence of this witness in the cross-examination, dated 18.09.2012, he stated in paragraph 6 of his deposition that he saw the face of the victim-deceased about three years back and on that date only he has talk with Dazy Devi and, thereafter, he has not seen her face. He has, further, stated that the father of the Dazy Devi had gone to her sasural about one month back, but, the father of Dazy Devi has not been examined that it has come that he is almost blind and is unable to see properly. However, this witness in his examination-in-chief has stated that the victim-deceased was married in 2004 and she was murdered on 11.07.2010 in the night and, then, when he learnt, he along with Sanjay Choudhary, Umesh Choudhary, Bablu Choudhary, Chandan Choudhary went together and found the house locked and in-laws were fled away and has deposed that the accused persons demanded rupees fifty thousand which was not fulfilled. However, there is no mention of the time regarding the demand and subjecting cruelty and his evidence regarding demand and subjecting cruelty is general and omni bus without any reference of time. In his cross-examination also he stated about the assault and subjecting cruelty, but, there is no specific mention of time and in paragraph 6 he has stated that for the last time he saw the face of the victim-deceased about three years back and his evidence about subjecting cruelty soon before death is missing, neither there is specific link established between the demand and subjecting cruelty regarding the murder of Dazy Devi. However, P.W. 1 is the brother of the victim-deceased though he has supported the prosecution case regarding the demand and subjecting cruelty and the death for non-fulfillment of demand, but, his evidence regarding subjecting cruelty and demand is missing. There is no submission about the demand and subjecting cruelty much less that soon before death she was subjected to cruelty. P.W. 2 though has stated about the marriage and the murder and recovery of dead body from the river. However, in paragraph 3 of his deposition he has stated that about eight days prior to the occurrence a demand was made by the accused persons and he had been to the house of his sister along with his phupha and they asked 20-25 days further time and he has deposed that they used to assault her sister. However, this part of the evidence is the only most important part of the evidence regarding subjected to cruelty soon before death. However, in his evidence there is no specific assertion about the subjecting cruelty except the oral statement that they used to assault his sister, but, there is no specific assertion that about eight days prior to the occurrence his sister was subjected to cruelty. His evidence regarding assault and subjecting cruelty is most cryptic. However, he has stated that about two months prior to the occurrence a demand of rupees fifty thousand was made and about five days prior to the occurrence he went to her sasural, but, he has, further, stated that he did not inform regarding this fact to any one. However, it is strange that though he went to sasural about eight days prior to the occurrence and learnt about the demand and subjecting cruelty and even prayed for 20-25 days time for fulfillment of the demand, but, he did not inform this fact to any one, hence, his evidence appears to be doubtful regarding the subjecting cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand soon before death. P.W. 3 is the doctor. The evidence of P.W. 4 regarding the demand and subjecting cruelty is missing so far in the evidence of P.W. 2 that he stated that he went to sasural with phupha who has been examined as C.W. 1, has stated that after one month of the marriage he went to sasural of Dazy Devi and his sala informed him about the death. However, in paragraph 7 of his evidence he has stated that after the marriage of Dazy Devi she went to sasural and since then she remained there. She came to naiher for one month, but, he can not say the date though she lived in naiher for one day and, thereafter, she never came to naiher. He has, further, stated in his evidence in paragraph 8 that he can not say when he visited sasural of the victim-deceased on the last occasion, hence, his evidence regarding subjecting cruelty soon before death is missing. P.W. 5 though have stated in his evidence in paragraph 7 that at the last time demand of dowry was made about ten days prior to the occurrence. However, he has stated that he did not inform the police. However, this witness in his cross-examination in paragraph 13 has stated that for the last time he met with Dazy Devi in 2010 and it was 7th November and has stated that sasural people used to subject her to cruelty for demand and the last time when he had a talk with her she did not ask him to follow to naiher nor he asked her parents to bring Dazy Devi. He has also given the reason that he did not say because her uncle and brother were there. However, uncle, P.W. 7, in his evidence has stated that he seen the face of the victim about three years prior to the occurrence, hence, the evidence of this witness is not corroborated in material and there is contradiction between evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 5 that when P.W. 5 stated that the uncle and brother were along with him when the last time he learnt about subjecting cruelty at sasural though the uncle, P.W. 7, stated that he has not seen her since last three years and three years falls in 2009 and the full brother, P.W. 1, Bablu Choudhary, has not supported the prosecution case regarding the demand and subjecting cruelty and this witness is cousin brother of the victim-deceased, hence, his evidence regarding the demand and subjecting cruelty suffers from the liability as his evidence does not appear to be reliable and trustworthy. P.W. 9 in her evidence has stated that she learnt on telephone. She is the mother of the victim-deceased and she has only stated that the witnesses, Sanjay Choudhary, Umesh Choudhary, Bablu Choudhary, Chandan Choudhary and Ram Balak Choudhary went to the sasural of Dazy Devi about 10-15 days prior to the occurrence, however, Bablu Choudhary is full brother and examined as P.W. 1 and has not supported the prosecution regarding the demand and subjecting cruelty.

Going into the entire evidence, I find and hold that there is no reliable evidence regarding the ingredients that soon before death the victim-deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand and the link between demand, alleged, and death of the victim-deceased was missing to hold conviction of the appellant. However, it is apparent that the trial Court did not go into the question regarding the reliability of the evidence subjecting cruelty soon before death of the victim-deceased, which has not found to be reliable and trustworthy to record the conviction under Section 304B of the Penal Code.

Hence, the order of conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial Court, is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Since, the appellant is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.