In Sarswati Devi vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Sunil Dutta Mishra set aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated May 30, 2017 and order of sentence dated June 1, 2017, passed in a Sessions Trial of 2010, arising out of Akorhigola Police Station case by the Court of P.O. F.T.C.-1, Rohtas at Sasaram, are quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the Trial Court. In the connected case, Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, the appellant who was in custody was directed to be released from jail custody forthwith, if his custody is no required in any other case. Sarswati Devi, the appellant was on bail. She is discharged from the liabilities of her bail-bonds.
In the present case, though the charge was framed under Section-302 of I.P.C., the trial court had acquitted the appellants qua the offence. But the appellants were convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section-304B read with 34 of I.P.C. However, the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section-304B of I.P.C.
Section 304B(1) in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads: "Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.— For the purpose of this sub-section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961."
In its 39-page long judgement, the Division Bench observed: "we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the crucial ingredient of cruelty and harassment by direct and cogent evidence, thereby disentitling itself to the benefit of the statutory presumption available under Section- 113B of Evidence Act. At this stage, it is also required to be observed that the trial court has committed serious error by recording the finding in para-23 of the impugned judgment that there is a cogent and clear evidence that deceased was subjected to harassment and torture soon before her death, i.e. in between January, 2009 and 11.11.2009 for bringing Rs. 50,000/- cash and motorcycle in dowry. In fact, there is no evidence led by the prosecution to suggest that there was harassment and torture soon before the death of the deceased for bringing Rs. 50,000/-cash and motorcycle in dowry. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients of the alleged offence, despite which the trial court has recorded the order of conviction. Hence, when the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is required to be quashed and set aside."
It all came out when the informant Anita Devi, mother of the deceased gave her fardbeyan on November 11, 2009 at 22:00 hours at the in-laws’ house of her daughter stating that the marriage of her daughter was solemnized on February 28, 2008 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. After the marriage, Priyanka (deceased) started to live in her matrimonial house and she visited her parental house in December, 2008. Taking the excuse of an accident, the husband of the deceased took her to Rohtas. Thereafter, Priyanka, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband started to live at Dihri in the rental accommodation of Dr. Surendra Gupta. The husband of Priyanka compelled her to demand Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle from her parents on mobile phone so that the same can be given at the time of his sister’s marriage. When the informant side tried to take her back to their house, the father-in-law and mother-in-law told in specific terms that they would not permit Priyanka to go until the aforesaid demand is fulfilled. Sunita, the sister-in-law of Priyanka treated her as a maid servant and did not permit her to watch T.V. From time to time, Priyanka used to inform the informant and her mother (Nani) about the ill-treatment meted to her and expressed apprehension of being killed. On October 30, 2009, when father of Priyanka went to take her back, Priyanka’s husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-inlaw insulted him and put the same condition. It is further alleged in the fardbeyan that before they could resolve the issue, on November 11, 2009, at about 4 p.m., a call from the Priyanka’s husband was received informing that Priyanka is ill. She was fainting off and on.
On this information, the informant, son of her sister-in-law, Sikandar Paswan, elder brother of her husband, Vikrama Paswan and her son Gaurav Kumar Nirala went to the in-laws’ house of her daughter and found her daughter dead with a black mark around her neck, which clearly indicated that her daughter was murdered by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law by pressing her neck and the accused persons fled away after the local people gathered around the place.
After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial.
The judgement of the Division Bench was authored by Justice Pancholi and delivered on April 19, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment