In Kaushaliya Devi Vs. State of Bihar, Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar of Patna High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated December 5, 2006 and order of sentence dated December 7, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-V, Sheikhpura. The High Court delivered the judgement on May 2, 2024. The benefits of doubt was given to the appellants. The judgement acquitted all the appellants of all the charges. The appellants were on bail all along. They were discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds.
The appeal was filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-V, Sheikhpura in connection with Sessions Case No. 404 of 1998 (Trial No. 124/2006), arising out of Barbigha P.S. Case No. 35 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304(B).
The prosecution case as per the F.I.R was that the informant Kapil Mahton gave a written information on March 3, 1997 to the effect that his daughter Sushila Devi (deceased) was married with Binod Mahto about three years before the date of filing the present F.I.R. After marriage, all the F.I.R named accused persons started torturing his daughter (deceased) for demand of dowry. She came many times at her parental house and narrated the same to the parents and other family members but every time, matter was consummated with the interventions of the family members of the deceased. It is further alleged that fort night prior to the complaint, the father-in-law of the deceased came to the informant’s house and informed that his daughter had fled away from her matrimonial house. The informant thereafter started searching his daughter and during search, he came to know that a lady about 25 years old had died consuming poison near bus stand. The informant went to the photo- studio shop and identified the photograph of that lady to be his daughter Sushila Devi. The informant alleged that due to torture, his daughter has committed suicide.
The case was registered against the appellants and others under Sections 498(A), 306/34 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
During the course of trial, altogether twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
The appellants' counsel submitted that appellants was innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case since they happens to be the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. The prosecution claimed demand of dowry and torture for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand but they failed to produce any evidence with regard to any torture or demand of dowry prior to the date of occurrence. The informant claimed that soon after the marriage, his daughter was tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demand but he had not filed any complaint regarding the torture and demand of dowry before any authority nor any panchayati was held in this regard which suggests that a concocted story was implanted to falsely implicate the appellants in this case.
The Court observed that "most of the prosecution witnesses are either highly interested or hearsay witnesses." It also noted that "the prosecution has also failed to prove that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage as the date of marriage has not been mentioned in the F.I.R."
The Court records that "from perusal of the records and on going through the evidences, it appears that none of the prosecution witnesses have seen the occurrence and most of the witnesses are related to the informant and are highly interested witnesses. The prosecution has not brought on record any proof with regard to the torture and demand of dowry prior to the death of the deceased. The husband of the deceased had also not been made accused. Whatever have been stated by the witnesses in their examinations-in-chief was not contradicted in absence of evidence of Investigating Officer. The right of bringing on record the contradictions in the statement of witnesses made before the Investigating Officer is a very valuable right of the accused and by showing that, the witness has made improvements or has given evidence, which contradicts his earlier statement, the accused is able to satisfy the Court that the witness is not reliable witness."
The Court observed: "It is also pertinent to mention here that in order to establish the offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is obliged to prove that death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than normal circumstances and such death occurs within seven years of her marriage and if it is shown that soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, such harassment and cruelty must be in connection with any demand of dowry."
It further observed" "If the prosecution proves the aforesaid circumstances then the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act will operate. Such presumption is rebuttable and the onus to rebut shifts on the accused persons. It is evident that there is nothing on record to show that soon before the death, there was any demand or torture by the appellants which is a necessary ingredient to bring the accused under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code clearly says that in case of abnormal death, if it is shown that soon before the death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry, such death can be called dowry death. It is evident from the discussions made that necessary ingredient has not been established by the prosecution to bring the case within the ambit of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code."
The Court pointed out that "If the prosecution fails to establish the aforesaid ingredient then presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act does not apply and in such case the burden does not shift to the accused persons to rebut the presumption under the law. Since the ingredient of Section 304-B is absent on the record, in my view, the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code."
The judgement concluded that "it is evident that the circumstantial evidence which has been brought on record, as discussed above, is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the appellants committed dowry death due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. It is well established rule of law that in case of circumstantial evidence, chain must be complete to establish the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and the appellants are entitled to get the benefits of doubt."
No comments:
Post a Comment