Full Judgment
B.N.P. Singh, J.
1. The appellants were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 304B and also Section 201/34, along with Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, on behest of Sitaram Singh (P.W. 2) with accusation that deceased. Pratima Devi, who happened to be his daughter, was married to Rabindra Kumar Sharma, appellant No. 3, about four years back, and shortly after celebration of second marriage, she died due to beating, which caused head injury, by in-laws, who had been insisting on the victim lady to fetch dowry from her parents. It was alleged that her dead body was cremated without information to them. After the police was set in motion, investigation commenced and during investigation, the police recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, visited place of occurrence, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court to face trial. After the eventual commitment, the appellants were put. on trial, and at trial, the State examined altogether seven witnesses including father and brother of the deceased and a host of witnesses including those who claimed to be conversant with the facts of the case. The defence too examined two witnesses, obviously, to counter allegations attributed to the appellants. The defence of the appellants before the trial Court and also this Court was that Pratima Devi, who was carrying pregnancy for about 4/5 months died due to profuse bleeding for which it is urged that there has been finding of Dr. A. C. Jha (D.W.2), and the trial Court on consideration of evidences placed on the record, while acquitting appellants of the rest of the charges, rendered verdict of guilt under Section 210/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years on that count.
2. Various contentions were raised at bar and it is urged that notwithstanding exoneration of appellants of the other charges and there being no clinching evidence on the record about the appellants being the killer of the deceased which could have persuaded them to dispose of the dead body in clandestine manner, the trial Court rushed to erroneous conclusion and recorded verdict of guilt against them under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and reliance on this score was sought to be placed on testimony of D. W. 2 and it is urged that if D. W. 1 was to be given credence, Madan singh and his wife were duly informed about death of Pratima Devi, who had come to participate in the cremation, and since narrations being made by this witness had not been repudiated by the State, there was no reason for non-acceptance of the testimony of the witness. It will appear from the finding recorded by the Court below that the trial Court rushed to erroneous conclusion on two premises, firstly, as house of Madan Singh situates at a distance of half Kilometer only from cremation Ghat, instead of taking the dead body to the cremation ghat from the doctor's clinic, the appellants would have informed in-laws, and secondly that instead of lady doctor, victim lady was taken to a male gynaecologist. However, these reasonings assigned by trial Court were quite un-sound as once Pratima Devi was found dead, there was no occasion to carry the dead body to her parents house, and secondly only on this score that Dr. A. C. Jha was not a lady gynaecologist, his evidence had not to be discarded. Though reliance was also placed on Ext. 5 which allegedly bore signature of some family members of the accused but the trial Court has not taken into notice that the signatures had not been exhibited. This fact also cannot be lost sight of that since the appellants have been acquitted of the primary charges, recording of guilt under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal code which were the ancillary charges was not of much consequence and reliance on this score can be placed on a decision of this Court reported in 2000 (1) P. L. J. R. 375 (chandrakant Jha v. State of Bihar), and noticing no merit on these premises, the finding recorded by trial Court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They would also stand discharged from the liability of their bail-bonds.