Babu Lal Ram ? Purna Khurna Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/109538
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnFeb-27-2017
AppellantBabu Lal Ram ? Purna Khurna Ram
RespondentState of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
criminal appeal (db) no. 1040 of 2008 against the judgment of conviction dated 01/07/2008 and order of sentence dated 03.07.2008, passed by additional sessions judge, f.t.c.-iii, chatra in sessions trial no. 23 of 2007. babu lal ram @ purna khurna ram, s/o jethu ram, r/o bigan,  ps­ piparwar, distt.­ chatra, jharkhand, ……………   appellant                                                versus state of  jharkhand…………………          respondent …… for the appellant : mr. a.k.kashyap, sr. advocate   mr. d. k. prasad, advocate for the state : mr. pankaj kumar, a.p.p. &   mr. azimuddin, a.p.p.       …… present the hon’ble the acting chief justice the hon’ble mr. justice ananda sen judgment by court: this criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction  and order of sentence dated 01.07.2008 and 03.07.2008 respectively, passed  by   the   additional   sessions   judge,   fast   track   court­iii,   chatra   in  connection  with  session  trial  no.  23   of  2007,  corresponding   to  piparwar  p.s. case no. 62 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the present appellant  namely, babu lal ram @ purna khurna ram having been found guilty of  charges   under   sections   498   a   &   304   b   of   indian   penal   code,   has   been  sentenced to undergo   imprisonment for life for the offence under section  304 b of the indian penal code and r.i. for 03 years for the offence under  section 498 a of the indian penal code. however, it was observed that both  the sentences will run concurrently.  2. the case of the prosecution is that the informant (pw­5), i.e.  the  father of the deceased, gave a fardbeyan on 01.12.2005 stating therein that  six   years   before   he   performed   marriage   of   his   daughter   shanti   devi  (deceased) with the present appellant and also expended some money. after  sometime   of   the   marriage,   the   accused   persons,   i.e.   present   appellant,  father­in­law,   mother­in­law   and   brother­in­law   started   assaulting   and  torturing   his daughter  and also demanded  a motorcycle.  thereafter, the   ­2­ deceased was thrown out of their house and then she came to her parental  house and stayed there for more than a year and, thereafter, few days before  the   occurrence,   the   appellant   took   his   daughter   to   his   house   and   on  01.12.2005 one rajendra ram came and informed him about killing of his  daughter by strangulation with rope and then he went there and saw the  dead body of his daughter and lodged the case.  on   the   basis   of   the   aforesaid   fardbeyan   of   the     informant  parwilwa mochi (p.w.5), piparwar p.s. case no. 62 of 2005, was registered  for the offence under sections 498 a and 304 b of the indian penal code,  against the accused persons.  subsequently, the matter was taken up for  investigation and the police examined the witnesses and sent the dead body  for   post   mortem   examination.   after   completion   of   investigation,   charge  sheet   was   submitted   against   the   present   appellant,   father­in­law   and  mother­in­law,   accordingly,   cognizance   of   the   offence   was   taken   and   the  case was committed to court of sessions for trial. the case of father­in­law  and mother­in­law was tried separately.  3. the case of the defence is complete denial of his involvement and  he specifically stated that at the time of occurrence he was not present.4. in order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution  has examined as much as ten witnesses including the investigating officer  (pw­9) and the doctor (pw­10) and the defence has examined two witness  dw­1 and dw­2.  5. the trial court, after going through the materials on record and  also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the  charges   levelled   against   the   appellant   to   be   proved   and,   thereafter,  sentenced him as aforesaid.6. mr.   a.k.kashyap,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the  appellant   has   assailed   the   judgment   of   the   learned   court   below   on   the   ­3­ following grounds:­ (i) there was no demand of dowry and torture soon before her  death as the informant (pw­5), i.e. the father of the deceased has  specifically stated in the fir that there was no demand of cash.. (ii) the informant (pw­5) is not a reliable witness as he developed  the story from time to time. (iii)   the   ingredient   of   section   498   a   and   304   b   of   the   indian  penal code has not been proved by the prosecution and there is  no   independent   witness   with   regard   to   demand   of   dowry   and  torture.  (iv)   the   impugned   judgment   has   illegally   been   passed   without  appreciating   the   evidence   and,   therefore,   it   is   a   fit   case   to  set  aside   the   impugned   judgment   of   conviction   and   order   of  sentence. mr. kashyap, in this regard, has relied upon a judgment of the  hon'ble supreme court rendered in the case of “baijnath and others­ versus­  state of madhya pradesh, reported in (2017) 1 scc 101.”7. mr.   pankaj   kumar,   learned   additional   public   prosecutor,   has  vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel  for the  appellant and contended that the occurrence took place within seven years  of   marriage,   which   has   been   proved   by   the   prosecution   and   there   was  demand of dowry soon before the death as the informant (pw­5) the father  of the deceased has specifically stated in his evidence about the demand of  dowry   and   torture   soon   before   the   death   and   pw­6   the   mother   of   the  deceased and pw­7 have corroborated the statement of pw­5. he further  contended   that   once   the   prosecution   has   proved   the   demand   of   dowry,  torture and unnatural death then the onus is on the defence to dispute the  said   fact   but   in   the   instant  case   nothing   has  been   elicited   in  the   cross­ ­4­ examination   disputing   the   above   fact   of   demand   of   dowry,   torture   and  unnatural   death.   therefore,   the   learned   trial   court   has   rightly   convicted  and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. there is no illegality and infirmity  in the impugned judgment and, hence, this appeal may be dismissed.8. perused the lower court records and gone through the evidence  on record minutely.9. pw­1 sanjay ram is one of the villagers, who heard that  there  was an occurrence of murder in the village. he has not stated about the  demand of dowry and torture. pw­2 lakhan ram, another co­villager, has  stated that he has no knowledge about the death of the deceased but he  admits that he knows the appellant, who is in jail. pw­3 hiraman mochi is  also a co­villager and the witness to the inquest. he specifically stated that  he has no knowledge about the cause of death of the deceased. pw­4 bipat  ram did not support the prosecution case. pw­5­ parwilwa mochi is the  informant   and   the   father   of   the   deceased.   he,   in   his   evidence,   has  specifically   stated   that   his   son­in­law,   father­in­law   and   mother­in­law   of  the deceased, had demanded rs. 50,000/­ and a motorcycle as a dowry and  due to non­fulfillment of the said demand of dowry, they used to torture the  deceased and he specifically stated that there was demand of dowry one  week   before   the   occurrence.   he   further   stated   that   he   received   the  information about the death of his daughter from one rajendra ram and,  thereafter, he went to the spot and lodged the fir. he also proved the fir  (ext­1). in his cross­examination, he admitted that on earlier occasion also  the   present   appellant   and   others   assaulted   the   deceased   but   he   did   not  report   the   matter   to   the   police.   he   admitted   that   he   had   not   seen   the  occurrence but he had seen the dead body of the deceased. rajendra ram  told him about the death of his daughter and earlier there was a panchayat.10. pw­6   madhia   devi   is   the   mother   of   the   deceased.   she   ­5­ corroborated the statement of pw­5. she further stated that she went to the  spot and saw the dead body of her daughter was lying in a cot and her hand  was open and tongue was out from the mouth. she specifically stated that  the   deceased   was   strangulated   to   death   by   petticoat.   in   her   cross­ examination, she specifically stated that there was demand of rs. 50,000/­  and a motorcycle as dowry by the accused persons. she further admitted  that the deceased had a daughter at the time of her death.   11. pw­7­   dhaneshwar   mochi   is   the   independent   witness   and   co­ worker of pw­5, who got information about the occurrence from pw­5 and  went to the place of occurrence alongwith pw­5 and saw the dead body of  the   deceased.   he   specifically   stated   in   his   examination­in­chief   that   the  deceased was being tortured. he further stated that there was a panchayat  and after the panchayat the deceased was taken to her in­laws house and  after some days the occurrence has taken place. in his cross­examination,  he admitted that there was a panchayat and the matter was settled and the  deceased   was   taken   to   her   in­laws   house   from   her   paternal   house.   he  admitted in his cross­examination that he did not know the cause of death.12. pw­8 jitan ram had not supported the prosecution case. pw­9 is  the investigating officer, he stated that he received information about the  occurrence in the village and reached there and investigated the matter and  sent the dead body for post mortem examination and after completion of the  investigation,   submitted   charge   sheet   against   the   present   appellant   and  other accused persons. in his cross­examination, he admitted that pws­ 5  & 6 did not state anything about the demand of rs. 50,000/­by the accused  persons.  13. p.w.­10 is dr. suresh sahu, who conducted autopsy of the dead  body and found the following injuries on the persons of the deceased:­ “(i) there was a ligature mark 1 x 1.5 cm reddish gray in colour below   ­6­ hyoid bone completely in circling the neck. on exploration there was   fracture of hyoid  and thyroid cartilage.  nostrils­ there was blood tinched fluid coming out through nostrils. (ii) there   was   bruise   on   back   and   anterior   abdominal   wall,   red   brown in colour size 7 x 3 x 2 cm and 5 x 3 x 1 cm respectively. (iii) lung­ congested. heart­ right­ full, left­ empty.  (iv) abdomen­   indigested   food   material.   liver,   spleen,   kidney­   congested. in the the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia  due to strangulation and the time elapsed since death 24­36 hours.  in his cross­examination, he also admitted that he did not find any  mark of finger on neck he only saw the ligature mark in the neck.14.   dw­1 rajendra ram is the co­villager, who specifically stated in  his examination­in­chief that the appellant was not present at the time of  occurrence   as   he   went   to   the   court   for   putting   attendance.   dw­2   bipin  bihar lal is the advocates clerk, who specifically stated that he proved the  attendance of the appellant, taken by his brother.15. after   scrutinizing   the   evidence   and   going   through   the   judgment  cited by the learned counsel for the appellant minutely, we find that in order  to prove the charge under section 304 b ipc, the prosecution has to prove  whether 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 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. but taking into consideration the  evidence, there is no material that soon before her death she was subjected  to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.  therefore, by taking into consideration the entire evidence, section 304 b of  the indian penal code has not been attracted and the prosecution has failed  to   prove   any   wilful   conduct   which   is   of   such   a   nature   as   is   likely   to   ­7­ drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,  limb or health and there is no material that there was torture with regard to  demand   of   any   dowry   or   valuable   articles.   none   of   the   prosecution  witnesses has also supported the story of pw­5. pw­5 developed the story  with regard to demand of cash amount in court. the i.o. has also admitted  the fact that there was no demand of cash and he also admitted that pws­ 5  &   6   did   not   state   about   anything   about   the   dowry.   therefore,   it   was   a  subsequent development of the said witnesses.   16. it is well settled that the  onus is on the prosecution to prove that  soon before the death there was demand of dowry and torture. but in the  instant case the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the death  of the deceased there was demand of dowry and torture.  17. under the circumstances, this court finds that the trial court has  committed   illegality   in   recording   the   order   of   conviction   and   sentence.  accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1 st july, 2008 and 3rd july, 2008 respectively, passed by the trial court in sessions trial no. 23 of 2007 against this appellant, is hereby set aside. the appellant, who is in custody, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.18.  in the result, this appeal is allowed.        (pradip kumar mohanty, acj)              (ananda sen, j)  jharkhand high court, ranchi dated the 27  february, 2017 th nafr/mukund/cp.­3
Judgment:

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1040 of 2008 Against the Judgment of conviction dated 01/07/2008 and order of sentence dated 03.07.2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2007. Babu Lal Ram @ Purna Khurna Ram, S/o Jethu Ram, R/o Bigan,  PS­ Piparwar, Distt.­ Chatra, Jharkhand, ……………   Appellant                                                Versus State of  Jharkhand…………………          Respondent …… For the Appellant : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate   Mr. D. K. Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. &   Mr. Azimuddin, A.P.P.       …… PRESENT The Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen JUDGMENT

By Court: This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction  and order of sentence dated 01.07.2008 and 03.07.2008 respectively, passed  by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Fast   Track   Court­III,   Chatra   in  connection  with  Session  Trial  No.  23   of  2007,  corresponding   to  Piparwar  P.S. Case No. 62 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the present appellant  namely, Babu Lal Ram @ Purna Khurna Ram having been found guilty of  charges   under   Sections   498   A   &   304   B   of   Indian   Penal   Code,   has   been  sentenced to undergo   imprisonment for life for the offence under Section  304 B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 03 years for the offence under  Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. However, it was observed that both  the sentences will run concurrently.  2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant (PW­5), i.e.  the  father of the deceased, gave a fardbeyan on 01.12.2005 stating therein that  six   years   before   he   performed   marriage   of   his   daughter   Shanti   Devi  (deceased) with the present appellant and also expended some money. After  sometime   of   the   marriage,   the   accused   persons,   i.e.   present   appellant,  father­in­law,   mother­in­law   and   brother­in­law   started   assaulting   and  torturing   his daughter  and also demanded  a motorcycle.  Thereafter, the   ­2­ deceased was thrown out of their house and then she came to her parental  house and stayed there for more than a year and, thereafter, few days before  the   occurrence,   the   appellant   took   his   daughter   to   his   house   and   on  01.12.2005 one Rajendra Ram came and informed him about killing of his  daughter by strangulation with rope and then he went there and saw the  dead body of his daughter and lodged the case.  On   the   basis   of   the   aforesaid   Fardbeyan   of   the     informant  Parwilwa Mochi (P.W.5), Piparwar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2005, was registered  for the offence under Sections 498 A and 304 B of the Indian Penal Code,  against the accused persons.  Subsequently, the matter was taken up for  investigation and the police examined the witnesses and sent the dead body  for   Post   Mortem   Examination.   After   completion   of   investigation,   charge  sheet   was   submitted   against   the   present   appellant,   father­in­law   and  mother­in­law,   accordingly,   cognizance   of   the   offence   was   taken   and   the  case was committed to Court of Sessions for trial. The case of father­in­law  and mother­in­law was tried separately.  3. The case of the defence is complete denial of his involvement and  he specifically stated that at the time of occurrence he was not present.

4. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution  has examined as much as ten witnesses including the Investigating Officer  (PW­9) and the Doctor (PW­10) and the defence has examined two witness  DW­1 and DW­2.  5. The Trial Court, after going through the materials on record and  also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the  charges   levelled   against   the   appellant   to   be   proved   and,   thereafter,  sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. Mr.   A.K.Kashyap,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the  appellant   has   assailed   the   judgment   of   the   learned   court   below   on   the   ­3­ following grounds:­ (I) There was no demand of dowry and torture soon before her  death as the informant (PW­5), i.e. the father of the deceased has  specifically stated in the FIR that there was no demand of cash.. (II) The informant (PW­5) is not a reliable witness as he developed  the story from time to time. (III)   The   ingredient   of   Section   498   A   and   304   B   of   the   Indian  Penal Code has not been proved by the prosecution and there is  no   independent   witness   with   regard   to   demand   of   dowry   and  torture.  (IV)   The   impugned   judgment   has   illegally   been   passed   without  appreciating   the   evidence   and,   therefore,   it   is   a   fit   case   to  set  aside   the   impugned   judgment   of   conviction   and   order   of  sentence. Mr. Kashyap, in this regard, has relied upon a judgment of the  Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “Baijnath and Others­ versus­  State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101.”

7. Mr.   Pankaj   Kumar,   learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor,   has  vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel  for the  appellant and contended that the occurrence took place within seven years  of   marriage,   which   has   been   proved   by   the   prosecution   and   there   was  demand of dowry soon before the death as the informant (PW­5) the father  of the deceased has specifically stated in his evidence about the demand of  dowry   and   torture   soon   before   the   death   and   PW­6   the   mother   of   the  deceased and PW­7 have corroborated the statement of PW­5. He further  contended   that   once   the   prosecution   has   proved   the   demand   of   dowry,  torture and unnatural death then the onus is on the defence to dispute the  said   fact   but   in   the   instant  case   nothing   has  been   elicited   in  the   cross­ ­4­ examination   disputing   the   above   fact   of   demand   of   dowry,   torture   and  unnatural   death.   Therefore,   the   learned   trial   court   has   rightly   convicted  and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. There is no illegality and infirmity  in the impugned judgment and, hence, this appeal may be dismissed.

8. Perused the lower court records and gone through the evidence  on record minutely.

9. PW­1 Sanjay Ram is one of the villagers, who heard that  there  was an occurrence of murder in the village. He has not stated about the  demand of dowry and torture. PW­2 Lakhan Ram, another co­villager, has  stated that he has no knowledge about the death of the deceased but he  admits that he knows the appellant, who is in jail. PW­3 Hiraman Mochi is  also a co­villager and the witness to the inquest. He specifically stated that  he has no knowledge about the cause of death of the deceased. PW­4 Bipat  Ram did not support the prosecution case. PW­5­ Parwilwa Mochi is the  informant   and   the   father   of   the   deceased.   He,   in   his   evidence,   has  specifically   stated   that   his   son­in­law,   father­in­law   and   mother­in­law   of  the deceased, had demanded Rs. 50,000/­ and a motorcycle as a dowry and  due to non­fulfillment of the said demand of dowry, they used to torture the  deceased and he specifically stated that there was demand of dowry one  week   before   the   occurrence.   He   further   stated   that   he   received   the  information about the death of his daughter from one Rajendra Ram and,  thereafter, he went to the spot and lodged the FIR. He also proved the FIR  (Ext­1). In his cross­examination, he admitted that on earlier occasion also  the   present   appellant   and   others   assaulted   the   deceased   but   he   did   not  report   the   matter   to   the   police.   He   admitted   that   he   had   not   seen   the  occurrence but he had seen the dead body of the deceased. Rajendra Ram  told him about the death of his daughter and earlier there was a Panchayat.

10. PW­6   Madhia   Devi   is   the   mother   of   the   deceased.   She   ­5­ corroborated the statement of PW­5. She further stated that she went to the  spot and saw the dead body of her daughter was lying in a cot and her hand  was open and tongue was out from the mouth. She specifically stated that  the   deceased   was   strangulated   to   death   by   petticoat.   In   her   cross­ examination, she specifically stated that there was demand of Rs. 50,000/­  and a motorcycle as dowry by the accused persons. She further admitted  that the deceased had a daughter at the time of her death.   11. PW­7­   Dhaneshwar   Mochi   is   the   independent   witness   and   co­ worker of PW­5, who got information about the occurrence from PW­5 and  went to the place of occurrence alongwith PW­5 and saw the dead body of  the   deceased.   He   specifically   stated   in   his   examination­in­chief   that   the  deceased was being tortured. He further stated that there was a Panchayat  and after the Panchayat the deceased was taken to her in­laws house and  after some days the occurrence has taken place. In his cross­examination,  he admitted that there was a Panchayat and the matter was settled and the  deceased   was   taken   to   her   in­laws   house   from   her   paternal   house.   He  admitted in his cross­examination that he did not know the cause of death.

12. PW­8 Jitan Ram had not supported the prosecution case. PW­9 is  the Investigating Officer, He stated that he received information about the  occurrence in the village and reached there and investigated the matter and  sent the dead body for post mortem examination and after completion of the  investigation,   submitted   charge   sheet   against   the   present   appellant   and  other accused persons. In his cross­examination, he admitted that PWs­ 5  & 6 did not state anything about the demand of Rs. 50,000/­by the accused  persons.  13. P.W.­10 is Dr. Suresh Sahu, who conducted autopsy of the dead  body and found the following injuries on the persons of the deceased:­ “(i) There was a ligature mark 1 x 1.5 cm reddish gray in colour below   ­6­ hyoid bone completely in circling the neck. On exploration there was   fracture of hyoid  and thyroid cartilage.  Nostrils­ There was blood tinched fluid coming out through nostrils. (ii) There   was   bruise   on   back   and   anterior   abdominal   wall,   red   brown in colour size 7 x 3 x 2 cm and 5 x 3 x 1 cm respectively. (iii) Lung­ Congested. Heart­ Right­ Full, Left­ empty.  (iv) Abdomen­   indigested   food   material.   Liver,   spleen,   kidney­   congested. In the the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia  due to strangulation and the time elapsed since death 24­36 hours.  In his cross­examination, he also admitted that he did not find any  mark of finger on neck he only saw the ligature mark in the neck.

14.   DW­1 Rajendra Ram is the co­villager, who specifically stated in  his examination­in­chief that the appellant was not present at the time of  occurrence   as   he   went   to   the   Court   for   putting   attendance.   DW­2   Bipin  Bihar Lal is the Advocates Clerk, who specifically stated that he proved the  attendance of the appellant, taken by his brother.

15. After   scrutinizing   the   evidence   and   going   through   the   judgment  cited by the learned counsel for the appellant minutely, we find that in order  to prove the charge under Section 304 B IPC, the prosecution has to prove  whether 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 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. But taking into consideration the  evidence, there is no material that soon before her death she was subjected  to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.  Therefore, by taking into consideration the entire evidence, Section 304 B of  the Indian Penal Code has not been attracted and the prosecution has failed  to   prove   any   wilful   conduct   which   is   of   such   a   nature   as   is   likely   to   ­7­ drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,  limb or health and there is no material that there was torture with regard to  demand   of   any   dowry   or   valuable   articles.   None   of   the   prosecution  witnesses has also supported the story of PW­5. PW­5 developed the story  with regard to demand of cash amount in Court. The I.O. has also admitted  the fact that there was no demand of cash and he also admitted that PWs­ 5  &   6   did   not   state   about   anything   about   the   dowry.   Therefore,   it   was   a  subsequent development of the said witnesses.   16. It is well settled that the  onus is on the prosecution to prove that  soon before the death there was demand of dowry and torture. But in the  instant case the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the death  of the deceased there was demand of dowry and torture.  17. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the trial court has  committed   illegality   in   recording   the   order   of   conviction   and   sentence.  Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1 st July, 2008 and 3rd July, 2008 respectively, passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2007 against this appellant, is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is in custody, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.

18.  In the result, this appeal is allowed.        (Pradip Kumar Mohanty, ACJ)              (Ananda Sen, J)  Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 27  February, 2017 th NAFR/Mukund/cp.­3