Nathuni Mehta and Another Vs. the State of Bihar

Decided On : Apr-29-2014

Court : Patna

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another Vs. the State of Bihar Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 2 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 3 => 'the U.D. Case',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 5 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 7 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 11 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 13 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 14 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 16 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 17 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 19 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 20 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 21 => 'the Indian Penal Code'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => 'Three',
			(int) 2 => 'two',
			(int) 3 => '302/34',
			(int) 4 => 'two',
			(int) 5 => '129',
			(int) 6 => '22.4.2014',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => '26/27.1.1995',
			(int) 9 => '3',
			(int) 10 => '4.',
			(int) 11 => '4',
			(int) 12 => '2',
			(int) 13 => '5.',
			(int) 14 => '4',
			(int) 15 => '6',
			(int) 16 => '5',
			(int) 17 => '6',
			(int) 18 => 'two',
			(int) 19 => '6',
			(int) 20 => 'seven',
			(int) 21 => '1',
			(int) 22 => '3',
			(int) 23 => '2',
			(int) 24 => '5',
			(int) 25 => '4',
			(int) 26 => '6',
			(int) 27 => '8.',
			(int) 28 => '9',
			(int) 29 => 'three',
			(int) 30 => 'two',
			(int) 31 => '7',
			(int) 32 => '8',
			(int) 33 => '11',
			(int) 34 => '12',
			(int) 35 => '13',
			(int) 36 => '4',
			(int) 37 => '4',
			(int) 38 => '14',
			(int) 39 => 'only two',
			(int) 40 => '1 and 4',
			(int) 41 => '1',
			(int) 42 => '15',
			(int) 43 => '2',
			(int) 44 => '16',
			(int) 45 => '17',
			(int) 46 => '1',
			(int) 47 => '2',
			(int) 48 => '18',
			(int) 49 => '19',
			(int) 50 => '20',
			(int) 51 => 'three',
			(int) 52 => '21',
			(int) 53 => 'two',
			(int) 54 => 'two'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Parmod Mehta',
			(int) 1 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 2 => 'Fulwa Devi',
			(int) 3 => 'Promod Mehta',
			(int) 4 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 5 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 6 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 7 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 8 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 9 => 'Basant Bigha',
			(int) 10 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 11 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
			(int) 12 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 13 => 'Kumar Singh',
			(int) 14 => 'S.I.',
			(int) 15 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 16 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 17 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
			(int) 18 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 19 => 'Fulwa Devi',
			(int) 20 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 21 => 'Dhaneshwar Mehta',
			(int) 22 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
			(int) 23 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 24 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 25 => 'Meena Singh',
			(int) 26 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 27 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 28 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 29 => 'Rokshati',
			(int) 30 => 'Ramashish Mehta',
			(int) 31 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 32 => 'P.W.4',
			(int) 33 => 'Donga',
			(int) 34 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 35 => 'Ram Pravesh Mehta',
			(int) 36 => 'S.I.',
			(int) 37 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 38 => 'Chulha',
			(int) 39 => 'Nathuni Mehta'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => '4th Additional Sessions',
			(int) 1 => 'Sections 304B',
			(int) 2 => 'Criminal Appeal',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 5 => 'Ext',
			(int) 6 => 'Ext',
			(int) 7 => 'P.W. 5 Dr.',
			(int) 8 => 'Sadar Hospital',
			(int) 9 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 10 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 11 => 'Ext',
			(int) 12 => 'FIR',
			(int) 13 => 'P.W. 7',
			(int) 14 => 'P.W. 7',
			(int) 15 => 'Ext',
			(int) 16 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 17 => 'Tandwa P.S. U.D. Case No',
			(int) 18 => 'Ext',
			(int) 19 => 'FIR',
			(int) 20 => 'Ext',
			(int) 21 => 'P.W. 6 (Ext',
			(int) 22 => 'P.W. 2 Ram Pravesh Mehta',
			(int) 23 => 'P.W. 7',
			(int) 24 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 25 => 'Learned Additional Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 26 => 'P.W. 1',
			(int) 27 => 'Ramashish Mehta P.W. 4',
			(int) 28 => 'P.W. 1',
			(int) 29 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 30 => 'P.W. 2',
			(int) 31 => 'U.D. Case',
			(int) 32 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 33 => 'Ext',
			(int) 34 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 35 => 'the U.D. Case',
			(int) 36 => 'Court',
			(int) 37 => 'Court',
			(int) 38 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 39 => 'Court',
			(int) 40 => 'Court',
			(int) 41 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 42 => 'Court',
			(int) 43 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 44 => 'Court'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '18th March 1997',
			(int) 1 => '19.3.1997',
			(int) 2 => 'seven years',
			(int) 3 => '1997',
			(int) 4 => 'the year 1992',
			(int) 5 => 'the last one month or so',
			(int) 6 => 'seven years',
			(int) 7 => '19.2.1995',
			(int) 8 => '1995',
			(int) 9 => 'about four years',
			(int) 10 => '1994',
			(int) 11 => 'the month',
			(int) 12 => 'the day',
			(int) 13 => '17 years',
			(int) 14 => '7 years',
			(int) 15 => '17 years',
			(int) 16 => 'a months',
			(int) 17 => 'today'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '100%',
			(int) 1 => '100%'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 1 => 'P.W. 7',
			(int) 2 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 3 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 4 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 5 => 'P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta',
			(int) 6 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 7 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 8 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 9 => 'P.W. 1',
			(int) 10 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 11 => 'Chulha',
			(int) 12 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 13 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 14 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 15 => 'P.W. 5'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'A.S.I.',
			(int) 1 => 'Agrahan',
			(int) 2 => 'Handi',
			(int) 3 => 'Handi',
			(int) 4 => 'Smt',
			(int) 5 => 'Singh'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jhopri',
			(int) 1 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 2 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 3 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 4 => 'P.Ws'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'firstly',
			(int) 1 => 'first'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151737',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 86 of 1997 ',
			'appellant' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-04-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Three accused persons, i.e., the two appellants, spouses between themselves and their son Parmod Mehta, were put on trial by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad after being charged with committing offences under Sections 304B and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 18th March 1997, they were held guilty of committing the offence only under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. They were heard on sentence on 19.3.1997 and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. While the two appellants Nathuni Mehta and his wife Fulwa Devi preferred this appeal jointly, their son Promod Mehta separately preferred Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 129 of 1997, but it appears that while he was languishing in prison he died there and his appeal stood abated on that account as may appear from the order of the Court passed on 22.4.2014.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Some of the undisputed facts were that the deceased Sitawa Devi was married to Pramod Mehta sometimes in the year 1992. She was in her matrimonial house in the night intervening 26/27.1.1995. She had in fact been residing therein for the last one month or so. It is also not disputed that she died of burn injuries in her matrimonial house and that her death had occurred within seven years of being married to deceased-accused Pramod Mehta.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. It appears that appellant Nathuni Mehta lodged a report in respect of unnatural death of the said Sitawa Devi by stating that while she was steaming paddy grains for preparing rice, she caught fire and in order to saving herself jumped into a well. The villagers of Basant Bigha, i.e., the place of residence of the appellants, rushed to the well and salvaged the dead body of Sitawa Devi from inside the well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. As may appear from the evidence of P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh, who subsequently drew up his own statement in the form of Ext. 4 on 19.2.1995, that the U.D. Case was registered on the basis of Ext. 2 the written report of appellant Nathuni Mehta and on that basis the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to P.W. 5 Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh who was posted in Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad as the Medical Officer. It was stated by P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh that the post-mortem examination report which was submitted by P.W. 5 revealed that the smell of kerosene oil was coming out from the hairs and skull and the mouth of the dead body was partially opened, eyes were closed and reddish froth was coming out of the nostrils of the deceased. The dead body was found bearing 100% burn injuries which was covering the whole of the body of the deceased and only the skull and hairs had escaped from being burnt, otherwise the whole body was black in colour. In the opinion of P.W. 5 the death was on account of burn injuries caused by flames of fire induced by kerosene oil and thus, gave sufficient reasons to infer that it was case of murder. P.W. 6 stated that appellant Nathuni Mehta had purposely filed a wrong report regarding the unnatural death of deceased Sitawa Devi so as to misleading the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. On the basis of Ext. 4 written report of S.I. Ramswarup Singh (P.W. 6), the FIR of the case (Ext. 5) was drawn and the investigation was undertaken by P.W. 7 A.S.I. Tej Narayan Mandal who inspected the place of occurrence which was the house of the present appellants and arrested appellants Nathuni Mehta and Fulwa Devi and after concluding the investigation submitted charge sheet for their trial. During the course of inspection of the place of occurrence P.W. 7 had found the house, which was built up of thatch materials completely gutted. It was a small Jhopri.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Thus, what appeared from the evidence of P.W. 7 was that the story that the deceased was steaming paddy grains for preparing rice was not found true as none of the two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 6 and 7 had stated in their evidence that they had found any utensil or oven which was used for steaming paddy grains on or around the place of occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. During the course of the trial seven witnesses were produced by the prosecution and documents, like, the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 1), the inquest report (Ext. 3) and the statement of the appellant Nathuni Mehta on the basis of which Tandwa P.S. U.D. Case No. 7 of 1995 was drawn up (Ext. 2) were brought on record besides the FIR (Ext. 5) which was drawn up on the basis of the self written report of P.W. 6 (Ext. 4). P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta was the father of the deceased Sitawa Devi while P.W. 2 Ram Pravesh Mehta was her brother. P.W. 3 Dhaneshwar Mehta was tendered for cross-examination while P.W. 4 yet another brother of the deceased had come to support the prosecution case. P.W. 5, I have already noted was the doctor who had held post-mortem examination and whose report had given a turn to the whole case by indicating as if it were a case of homicide and not of unnatural death. P.W. 6 as pointed out earlier was the informant of the case, S.I. Ramswarup Singh and P.W. 7 had investigated into the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. The defence did not examine any witness in support of its case that Sitawa Devi had caught fire while steaming paddy and had jumped into a well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. On considering the evidence the impugned judgment was passed by which the three accused persons, i.e., the two appellants and the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but were convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Smt. Meena Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no date given by any of the witnesses as to on which the deceased was married to the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta. It was admitted by the witnesses that the marriage was dowryless but they stated that after the deceased had arrived into the house of the appellants, they had started demanding motorcycle and for that the deceased was being ill-treated and tortured which fact was narrated by her to her family members, like, P.W. 4 and others. It was contended that it could be a case of unnatural death as the description of the place of occurrence given by P.W. 6 in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his evidence could raise that probability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor was submitting that the evidence of witnesses were that of uninterested persons who came out in support of some of the circumstances attending on the commission of the offence and on considering the same it may be found that there was no need of interfering with the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta was the father of the deceased and he stated that his daughter was married about four years back to deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta and they were demanding a motorcycle in dowry and whenever Sitawa Devi came back to her parents house she used to relate the above demand of accused persons to her parents and others. It was further stated by P.W. 1 that on account of non-fulfillment of demand, the deceased was also being ill-treated and tortured so much so that she used to be assaulted also. It was stated that the demand was made firstly as soon as the deceased had come for the first time in her matrimonial house and again when she went back there after Rokshati the same demand was made and the same treatment was meted out to the deceased, the information about which was given to him by Ramashish Mehta P.W. 4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. P.W. 4 Ramashish Mehta the full brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1 also supported the allegations and facts stated by his father as regards the marriage of the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta and the demand of dowry by the accused persons and the ill-treatment and torture of the lady on that account. P.W.4 stated that the Donga ceremony was performed in 1994 in the month of Agrahan and many presents were given to the accused persons but they rejected them and snapped their relationship with them and he went there to the house of the accused persons when his sister had pointed out that if the motorcycle demanded by the accused persons, was not given to them they might kill her. P.W. 4 further stated that appellant Nathuni Mehta had also threatened that if the motorcycle had not been given then his sister would be killed. P.W. 4 stated that he attempted to reconcile the accused persons to the situation, but to no effect and he came back to his house and subsequently he and others of his family members learnt about the occurrence having occurred.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While addressing the court the learned counsel for the appellants had pointed out that during cross-examination P.W. 4 had admitted that he did not make any report about the ill-treatment or torture of his sister by the accused persons and it was submitted that the conduct of P.W. 4 was not only unnatural but absurd and improbable. The court finds no absurdity or improbability in the conduct of P.W. 4 or others of his family because marrying off a daughter by the parents is not only discharging the obligation by them, but it rather creates further responsibility also upon them to take all steps necessary so as to ensuring that the marriage succeeds. No father or brother could, in spite of some instances of ill-treatment or torture of the bride is as courageous and prompt in lodging reports about the misbehaviour either of the husband or of others of his family. The only psychological factor which forbids them to do so is that such a step may further compound the situation and make the parties irreconcilable. In that view the conduct of P.W. 4 or his father in not reporting the matter of ill-treatment or torture to any authority to me does not appear of any substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These are the only two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 1 and 4 with further support from P.W. 2, i.e., Ram Pravesh Mehta yet another brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1. He has also supported the story in its entirety as was done by P.Ws. 1 and 4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the investigating officer of U.D. Case, i.e., P.W. 6 who subsequently became the informant of the case, had found certain signs inside the house of the appellants which may give rise to the probability as if the deceased had been steaming paddy grains as was the initial case of appellant Nathuni Mehta contained in Ext. 2. I have considered the argument and I have perused the relevant paragraph-7 of the deposition of P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh who stated that he investigated into the fardbeyan of appellant Nathuni Mehta and he went to the place of occurrence and found that the house which was of thatch, had completely been gutted and paddy grains were scattered all over. A small box was also burnt and had become turtle. P.W. 6 found signs of pouring water on the roof in an attempt of dowsing the flames and he found a Chulha inside the house and also found a Handi (utensil) and further found some grains of paddy scattered there. The informant who was the investigating officer of the U.D. Case had not stated that he found any paddy kept in Handi. Further what I find is that the heat which was generated by the flames of fire was so intense and terrific that it had deformed a metal box so much so that it had become turtle. But, curiously enough, P.W. 6 was still finding paddy grains of rice intact on earth which this Court does not believe existing in such intense flames specially when a metal box had turned turtle. In the opinion of the Court those paddy grains which were found scattered around the Chulha inside the gutted house was probably a subsequent act of the accused persons in the chain of many acts which they committed so as to creating the evidence in their favour for diverting the attention of the investigating officer. What I find is that there was no evidence found by P.W. 6 after inspecting the gutted house showing that the deceased had been engaged in steaming paddy grains for preparing rice. This story was not borne out from the evidence of P.W. 6 or any of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. The other circumstance which appeared strongly against the accused persons was that as per their own story and as per the prosecution case also the deceased had caught fire and had jumped inside the well. At the time of jumping into the well the deceased was alive and if she had drown in water her stomach ought to have contained water as always happens in case of a living person drowning in water. The lungs of the deceased might also have contained sufficient water. But, what the doctor P.W. 5 found that the stomach was empty, the bladder was empty and the lungs was also empty. Thus the circumstance that the deceased was salvaged from the well was yet another circumstance against the accused persons which suggested that the deceased was definitely burnt to death and her dead body was put sometimes after into the water of the well to create a defence. That the deceased was burnt to death is as clear as the day light. If one could have considered the evidence of P.W. 5, one would find that smell of kerosene oil was coming out of the skull and hairs of the deceased. It was 100% burn injuries which had been induced as per the evidence of P.W. 5 by flames generated by using kerosene oil. The whole body was charred and was looking black, except the hair part of the head and skull.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The motive was that the deceased was not bringing the motorcycle and submission of Smt. Singh that it was a demand made subsequently by the accused persons after the marriage had been solemnized dowryless. If one could consider the definition of dowry and the evidence of witnesses, one could find that anything which was demanded for or in consideration of a marriage is dowry and witnesses like P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 stated that the deceased had been ill-treated and torture and the relationship with the witnesses had also been snapped by the accused persons. As such the demand was definitely for and in consideration of the marriage. The marriage was not terminated lawfully or even as could be terminated socially by expelling the lady or by abandoning her or even by deserting her, but by snapping the very life cord of the lady.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. The above are some of the circumstances which could have convinced the learned trial Judge to hold that it was a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code due to establishing completely they chains pointed out by me. But, unfortunately, the learned trial Judge was considering the evidence of the case as superficially as to fall in grave error in appreciating it and as such, was passing a perverse order of acquittal as respects the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The worst was that the said order was also not assailed in appeal by challenging that part of acquittal and this Court after 17 years could not suo-motu embark upon the reappraisal of evidence to up-turn the judgment of acquittal passed against the appellants. Even if there is no appeal this Court could very well say that the acquittal of the accused persons for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was rank perverse acquittal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. It could also be a case which could fully be covered by the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which requires that if the death of a lady occurring within 7 years of her marriage, is the question of enquiry by the court, and, it is reasonably shown that just prior to her death, she had been ill-treated or tortured either by her husband or any of his relatives in connection with dowry, the accused shall be deemed to have committed dowry death. The very provision requires the Court to presume that the accused had committed dowry death, if the ingredients of the offence of dowry death are established. The provision raises a statutory presumption against the accused if in case the ingredients of the offence are fully established. I have already noticed the evidence which was produced by the prosecution in the case and that evidence fully establishes all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In that light a presumption that the accused persons had committed the offence of dowry death, has to be drawn as per the very provision of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons have offered some explanation but the explanation which was offered by them was found palpably false and the same was set up in order to misleading the investigation of the offence which could be covered by the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. That additional false plea which was raised by the appellant Nathuni Mehta was yet another circumstance against the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. In view of the discussion just made in the light of the evidence, I am fully satisfied that an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was also made out on facts and the three accused persons had rightly been convicted for that offence. But, when it came to inflicting appropriate sentence, the learned trial judge appears again taking a very lenient view in imparting sentence. Again, after 17 years of the passing of the impugned judgment this Court does not feel inclined to revisit the order of sentence passed upon the appellants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The two appellants are on bail, their bonds are cancelled. Let them surrender before the court below in a months time from today else the court below shall take all steps necesary under law to ensure that the two appellants are arrested and remanded to custody for serving out the sentence passed upon them.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151737'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nathuni Mehta and Another Vs. the State of Bihar Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 2 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 3 => 'the U.D. Case',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 5 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 7 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 11 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 13 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 14 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 16 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 17 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 19 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 20 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 21 => 'the Indian Penal Code'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => 'Three',
		(int) 2 => 'two',
		(int) 3 => '302/34',
		(int) 4 => 'two',
		(int) 5 => '129',
		(int) 6 => '22.4.2014',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => '26/27.1.1995',
		(int) 9 => '3',
		(int) 10 => '4.',
		(int) 11 => '4',
		(int) 12 => '2',
		(int) 13 => '5.',
		(int) 14 => '4',
		(int) 15 => '6',
		(int) 16 => '5',
		(int) 17 => '6',
		(int) 18 => 'two',
		(int) 19 => '6',
		(int) 20 => 'seven',
		(int) 21 => '1',
		(int) 22 => '3',
		(int) 23 => '2',
		(int) 24 => '5',
		(int) 25 => '4',
		(int) 26 => '6',
		(int) 27 => '8.',
		(int) 28 => '9',
		(int) 29 => 'three',
		(int) 30 => 'two',
		(int) 31 => '7',
		(int) 32 => '8',
		(int) 33 => '11',
		(int) 34 => '12',
		(int) 35 => '13',
		(int) 36 => '4',
		(int) 37 => '4',
		(int) 38 => '14',
		(int) 39 => 'only two',
		(int) 40 => '1 and 4',
		(int) 41 => '1',
		(int) 42 => '15',
		(int) 43 => '2',
		(int) 44 => '16',
		(int) 45 => '17',
		(int) 46 => '1',
		(int) 47 => '2',
		(int) 48 => '18',
		(int) 49 => '19',
		(int) 50 => '20',
		(int) 51 => 'three',
		(int) 52 => '21',
		(int) 53 => 'two',
		(int) 54 => 'two'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Parmod Mehta',
		(int) 1 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 2 => 'Fulwa Devi',
		(int) 3 => 'Promod Mehta',
		(int) 4 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 5 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 6 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 7 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 8 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 9 => 'Basant Bigha',
		(int) 10 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 11 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
		(int) 12 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 13 => 'Kumar Singh',
		(int) 14 => 'S.I.',
		(int) 15 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 16 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 17 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
		(int) 18 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 19 => 'Fulwa Devi',
		(int) 20 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 21 => 'Dhaneshwar Mehta',
		(int) 22 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
		(int) 23 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 24 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 25 => 'Meena Singh',
		(int) 26 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 27 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 28 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 29 => 'Rokshati',
		(int) 30 => 'Ramashish Mehta',
		(int) 31 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 32 => 'P.W.4',
		(int) 33 => 'Donga',
		(int) 34 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 35 => 'Ram Pravesh Mehta',
		(int) 36 => 'S.I.',
		(int) 37 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 38 => 'Chulha',
		(int) 39 => 'Nathuni Mehta'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => '4th Additional Sessions',
		(int) 1 => 'Sections 304B',
		(int) 2 => 'Criminal Appeal',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 5 => 'Ext',
		(int) 6 => 'Ext',
		(int) 7 => 'P.W. 5 Dr.',
		(int) 8 => 'Sadar Hospital',
		(int) 9 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 10 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 11 => 'Ext',
		(int) 12 => 'FIR',
		(int) 13 => 'P.W. 7',
		(int) 14 => 'P.W. 7',
		(int) 15 => 'Ext',
		(int) 16 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 17 => 'Tandwa P.S. U.D. Case No',
		(int) 18 => 'Ext',
		(int) 19 => 'FIR',
		(int) 20 => 'Ext',
		(int) 21 => 'P.W. 6 (Ext',
		(int) 22 => 'P.W. 2 Ram Pravesh Mehta',
		(int) 23 => 'P.W. 7',
		(int) 24 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 25 => 'Learned Additional Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 26 => 'P.W. 1',
		(int) 27 => 'Ramashish Mehta P.W. 4',
		(int) 28 => 'P.W. 1',
		(int) 29 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 30 => 'P.W. 2',
		(int) 31 => 'U.D. Case',
		(int) 32 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 33 => 'Ext',
		(int) 34 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 35 => 'the U.D. Case',
		(int) 36 => 'Court',
		(int) 37 => 'Court',
		(int) 38 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 39 => 'Court',
		(int) 40 => 'Court',
		(int) 41 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 42 => 'Court',
		(int) 43 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 44 => 'Court'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '18th March 1997',
		(int) 1 => '19.3.1997',
		(int) 2 => 'seven years',
		(int) 3 => '1997',
		(int) 4 => 'the year 1992',
		(int) 5 => 'the last one month or so',
		(int) 6 => 'seven years',
		(int) 7 => '19.2.1995',
		(int) 8 => '1995',
		(int) 9 => 'about four years',
		(int) 10 => '1994',
		(int) 11 => 'the month',
		(int) 12 => 'the day',
		(int) 13 => '17 years',
		(int) 14 => '7 years',
		(int) 15 => '17 years',
		(int) 16 => 'a months',
		(int) 17 => 'today'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '100%',
		(int) 1 => '100%'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 1 => 'P.W. 7',
		(int) 2 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 3 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 4 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 5 => 'P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta',
		(int) 6 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 7 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 8 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 9 => 'P.W. 1',
		(int) 10 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 11 => 'Chulha',
		(int) 12 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 13 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 14 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 15 => 'P.W. 5'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'A.S.I.',
		(int) 1 => 'Agrahan',
		(int) 2 => 'Handi',
		(int) 3 => 'Handi',
		(int) 4 => 'Smt',
		(int) 5 => 'Singh'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jhopri',
		(int) 1 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 2 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 3 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 4 => 'P.Ws'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'firstly',
		(int) 1 => 'first'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151737',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 86 of 1997 ',
		'appellant' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-04-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Three accused persons, i.e., the two appellants, spouses between themselves and their son Parmod Mehta, were put on trial by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad after being charged with committing offences under Sections 304B and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 18th March 1997, they were held guilty of committing the offence only under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. They were heard on sentence on 19.3.1997 and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. While the two appellants Nathuni Mehta and his wife Fulwa Devi preferred this appeal jointly, their son Promod Mehta separately preferred Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 129 of 1997, but it appears that while he was languishing in prison he died there and his appeal stood abated on that account as may appear from the order of the Court passed on 22.4.2014.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Some of the undisputed facts were that the deceased Sitawa Devi was married to Pramod Mehta sometimes in the year 1992. She was in her matrimonial house in the night intervening 26/27.1.1995. She had in fact been residing therein for the last one month or so. It is also not disputed that she died of burn injuries in her matrimonial house and that her death had occurred within seven years of being married to deceased-accused Pramod Mehta.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. It appears that appellant Nathuni Mehta lodged a report in respect of unnatural death of the said Sitawa Devi by stating that while she was steaming paddy grains for preparing rice, she caught fire and in order to saving herself jumped into a well. The villagers of Basant Bigha, i.e., the place of residence of the appellants, rushed to the well and salvaged the dead body of Sitawa Devi from inside the well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. As may appear from the evidence of P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh, who subsequently drew up his own statement in the form of Ext. 4 on 19.2.1995, that the U.D. Case was registered on the basis of Ext. 2 the written report of appellant Nathuni Mehta and on that basis the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to P.W. 5 Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh who was posted in Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad as the Medical Officer. It was stated by P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh that the post-mortem examination report which was submitted by P.W. 5 revealed that the smell of kerosene oil was coming out from the hairs and skull and the mouth of the dead body was partially opened, eyes were closed and reddish froth was coming out of the nostrils of the deceased. The dead body was found bearing 100% burn injuries which was covering the whole of the body of the deceased and only the skull and hairs had escaped from being burnt, otherwise the whole body was black in colour. In the opinion of P.W. 5 the death was on account of burn injuries caused by flames of fire induced by kerosene oil and thus, gave sufficient reasons to infer that it was case of murder. P.W. 6 stated that appellant Nathuni Mehta had purposely filed a wrong report regarding the unnatural death of deceased Sitawa Devi so as to misleading the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. On the basis of Ext. 4 written report of S.I. Ramswarup Singh (P.W. 6), the FIR of the case (Ext. 5) was drawn and the investigation was undertaken by P.W. 7 A.S.I. Tej Narayan Mandal who inspected the place of occurrence which was the house of the present appellants and arrested appellants Nathuni Mehta and Fulwa Devi and after concluding the investigation submitted charge sheet for their trial. During the course of inspection of the place of occurrence P.W. 7 had found the house, which was built up of thatch materials completely gutted. It was a small Jhopri.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Thus, what appeared from the evidence of P.W. 7 was that the story that the deceased was steaming paddy grains for preparing rice was not found true as none of the two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 6 and 7 had stated in their evidence that they had found any utensil or oven which was used for steaming paddy grains on or around the place of occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. During the course of the trial seven witnesses were produced by the prosecution and documents, like, the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 1), the inquest report (Ext. 3) and the statement of the appellant Nathuni Mehta on the basis of which Tandwa P.S. U.D. Case No. 7 of 1995 was drawn up (Ext. 2) were brought on record besides the FIR (Ext. 5) which was drawn up on the basis of the self written report of P.W. 6 (Ext. 4). P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta was the father of the deceased Sitawa Devi while P.W. 2 Ram Pravesh Mehta was her brother. P.W. 3 Dhaneshwar Mehta was tendered for cross-examination while P.W. 4 yet another brother of the deceased had come to support the prosecution case. P.W. 5, I have already noted was the doctor who had held post-mortem examination and whose report had given a turn to the whole case by indicating as if it were a case of homicide and not of unnatural death. P.W. 6 as pointed out earlier was the informant of the case, S.I. Ramswarup Singh and P.W. 7 had investigated into the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. The defence did not examine any witness in support of its case that Sitawa Devi had caught fire while steaming paddy and had jumped into a well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. On considering the evidence the impugned judgment was passed by which the three accused persons, i.e., the two appellants and the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but were convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Smt. Meena Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no date given by any of the witnesses as to on which the deceased was married to the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta. It was admitted by the witnesses that the marriage was dowryless but they stated that after the deceased had arrived into the house of the appellants, they had started demanding motorcycle and for that the deceased was being ill-treated and tortured which fact was narrated by her to her family members, like, P.W. 4 and others. It was contended that it could be a case of unnatural death as the description of the place of occurrence given by P.W. 6 in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his evidence could raise that probability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor was submitting that the evidence of witnesses were that of uninterested persons who came out in support of some of the circumstances attending on the commission of the offence and on considering the same it may be found that there was no need of interfering with the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta was the father of the deceased and he stated that his daughter was married about four years back to deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta and they were demanding a motorcycle in dowry and whenever Sitawa Devi came back to her parents house she used to relate the above demand of accused persons to her parents and others. It was further stated by P.W. 1 that on account of non-fulfillment of demand, the deceased was also being ill-treated and tortured so much so that she used to be assaulted also. It was stated that the demand was made firstly as soon as the deceased had come for the first time in her matrimonial house and again when she went back there after Rokshati the same demand was made and the same treatment was meted out to the deceased, the information about which was given to him by Ramashish Mehta P.W. 4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. P.W. 4 Ramashish Mehta the full brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1 also supported the allegations and facts stated by his father as regards the marriage of the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta and the demand of dowry by the accused persons and the ill-treatment and torture of the lady on that account. P.W.4 stated that the Donga ceremony was performed in 1994 in the month of Agrahan and many presents were given to the accused persons but they rejected them and snapped their relationship with them and he went there to the house of the accused persons when his sister had pointed out that if the motorcycle demanded by the accused persons, was not given to them they might kill her. P.W. 4 further stated that appellant Nathuni Mehta had also threatened that if the motorcycle had not been given then his sister would be killed. P.W. 4 stated that he attempted to reconcile the accused persons to the situation, but to no effect and he came back to his house and subsequently he and others of his family members learnt about the occurrence having occurred.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While addressing the court the learned counsel for the appellants had pointed out that during cross-examination P.W. 4 had admitted that he did not make any report about the ill-treatment or torture of his sister by the accused persons and it was submitted that the conduct of P.W. 4 was not only unnatural but absurd and improbable. The court finds no absurdity or improbability in the conduct of P.W. 4 or others of his family because marrying off a daughter by the parents is not only discharging the obligation by them, but it rather creates further responsibility also upon them to take all steps necessary so as to ensuring that the marriage succeeds. No father or brother could, in spite of some instances of ill-treatment or torture of the bride is as courageous and prompt in lodging reports about the misbehaviour either of the husband or of others of his family. The only psychological factor which forbids them to do so is that such a step may further compound the situation and make the parties irreconcilable. In that view the conduct of P.W. 4 or his father in not reporting the matter of ill-treatment or torture to any authority to me does not appear of any substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These are the only two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 1 and 4 with further support from P.W. 2, i.e., Ram Pravesh Mehta yet another brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1. He has also supported the story in its entirety as was done by P.Ws. 1 and 4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the investigating officer of U.D. Case, i.e., P.W. 6 who subsequently became the informant of the case, had found certain signs inside the house of the appellants which may give rise to the probability as if the deceased had been steaming paddy grains as was the initial case of appellant Nathuni Mehta contained in Ext. 2. I have considered the argument and I have perused the relevant paragraph-7 of the deposition of P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh who stated that he investigated into the fardbeyan of appellant Nathuni Mehta and he went to the place of occurrence and found that the house which was of thatch, had completely been gutted and paddy grains were scattered all over. A small box was also burnt and had become turtle. P.W. 6 found signs of pouring water on the roof in an attempt of dowsing the flames and he found a Chulha inside the house and also found a Handi (utensil) and further found some grains of paddy scattered there. The informant who was the investigating officer of the U.D. Case had not stated that he found any paddy kept in Handi. Further what I find is that the heat which was generated by the flames of fire was so intense and terrific that it had deformed a metal box so much so that it had become turtle. But, curiously enough, P.W. 6 was still finding paddy grains of rice intact on earth which this Court does not believe existing in such intense flames specially when a metal box had turned turtle. In the opinion of the Court those paddy grains which were found scattered around the Chulha inside the gutted house was probably a subsequent act of the accused persons in the chain of many acts which they committed so as to creating the evidence in their favour for diverting the attention of the investigating officer. What I find is that there was no evidence found by P.W. 6 after inspecting the gutted house showing that the deceased had been engaged in steaming paddy grains for preparing rice. This story was not borne out from the evidence of P.W. 6 or any of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. The other circumstance which appeared strongly against the accused persons was that as per their own story and as per the prosecution case also the deceased had caught fire and had jumped inside the well. At the time of jumping into the well the deceased was alive and if she had drown in water her stomach ought to have contained water as always happens in case of a living person drowning in water. The lungs of the deceased might also have contained sufficient water. But, what the doctor P.W. 5 found that the stomach was empty, the bladder was empty and the lungs was also empty. Thus the circumstance that the deceased was salvaged from the well was yet another circumstance against the accused persons which suggested that the deceased was definitely burnt to death and her dead body was put sometimes after into the water of the well to create a defence. That the deceased was burnt to death is as clear as the day light. If one could have considered the evidence of P.W. 5, one would find that smell of kerosene oil was coming out of the skull and hairs of the deceased. It was 100% burn injuries which had been induced as per the evidence of P.W. 5 by flames generated by using kerosene oil. The whole body was charred and was looking black, except the hair part of the head and skull.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The motive was that the deceased was not bringing the motorcycle and submission of Smt. Singh that it was a demand made subsequently by the accused persons after the marriage had been solemnized dowryless. If one could consider the definition of dowry and the evidence of witnesses, one could find that anything which was demanded for or in consideration of a marriage is dowry and witnesses like P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 stated that the deceased had been ill-treated and torture and the relationship with the witnesses had also been snapped by the accused persons. As such the demand was definitely for and in consideration of the marriage. The marriage was not terminated lawfully or even as could be terminated socially by expelling the lady or by abandoning her or even by deserting her, but by snapping the very life cord of the lady.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. The above are some of the circumstances which could have convinced the learned trial Judge to hold that it was a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code due to establishing completely they chains pointed out by me. But, unfortunately, the learned trial Judge was considering the evidence of the case as superficially as to fall in grave error in appreciating it and as such, was passing a perverse order of acquittal as respects the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The worst was that the said order was also not assailed in appeal by challenging that part of acquittal and this Court after 17 years could not suo-motu embark upon the reappraisal of evidence to up-turn the judgment of acquittal passed against the appellants. Even if there is no appeal this Court could very well say that the acquittal of the accused persons for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was rank perverse acquittal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. It could also be a case which could fully be covered by the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which requires that if the death of a lady occurring within 7 years of her marriage, is the question of enquiry by the court, and, it is reasonably shown that just prior to her death, she had been ill-treated or tortured either by her husband or any of his relatives in connection with dowry, the accused shall be deemed to have committed dowry death. The very provision requires the Court to presume that the accused had committed dowry death, if the ingredients of the offence of dowry death are established. The provision raises a statutory presumption against the accused if in case the ingredients of the offence are fully established. I have already noticed the evidence which was produced by the prosecution in the case and that evidence fully establishes all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In that light a presumption that the accused persons had committed the offence of dowry death, has to be drawn as per the very provision of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons have offered some explanation but the explanation which was offered by them was found palpably false and the same was set up in order to misleading the investigation of the offence which could be covered by the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. That additional false plea which was raised by the appellant Nathuni Mehta was yet another circumstance against the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. In view of the discussion just made in the light of the evidence, I am fully satisfied that an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was also made out on facts and the three accused persons had rightly been convicted for that offence. But, when it came to inflicting appropriate sentence, the learned trial judge appears again taking a very lenient view in imparting sentence. Again, after 17 years of the passing of the impugned judgment this Court does not feel inclined to revisit the order of sentence passed upon the appellants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The two appellants are on bail, their bonds are cancelled. Let them surrender before the court below in a months time from today else the court below shall take all steps necesary under law to ensure that the two appellants are arrested and remanded to custody for serving out the sentence passed upon them.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151737'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another Vs. the State of Bihar Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 2 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 3 => 'the U.D. Case',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 5 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 7 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 11 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 13 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 14 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 15 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 16 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 17 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 19 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
			(int) 20 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 21 => 'the Indian Penal Code'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => 'Three',
			(int) 2 => 'two',
			(int) 3 => '302/34',
			(int) 4 => 'two',
			(int) 5 => '129',
			(int) 6 => '22.4.2014',
			(int) 7 => '2',
			(int) 8 => '26/27.1.1995',
			(int) 9 => '3',
			(int) 10 => '4.',
			(int) 11 => '4',
			(int) 12 => '2',
			(int) 13 => '5.',
			(int) 14 => '4',
			(int) 15 => '6',
			(int) 16 => '5',
			(int) 17 => '6',
			(int) 18 => 'two',
			(int) 19 => '6',
			(int) 20 => 'seven',
			(int) 21 => '1',
			(int) 22 => '3',
			(int) 23 => '2',
			(int) 24 => '5',
			(int) 25 => '4',
			(int) 26 => '6',
			(int) 27 => '8.',
			(int) 28 => '9',
			(int) 29 => 'three',
			(int) 30 => 'two',
			(int) 31 => '7',
			(int) 32 => '8',
			(int) 33 => '11',
			(int) 34 => '12',
			(int) 35 => '13',
			(int) 36 => '4',
			(int) 37 => '4',
			(int) 38 => '14',
			(int) 39 => 'only two',
			(int) 40 => '1 and 4',
			(int) 41 => '1',
			(int) 42 => '15',
			(int) 43 => '2',
			(int) 44 => '16',
			(int) 45 => '17',
			(int) 46 => '1',
			(int) 47 => '2',
			(int) 48 => '18',
			(int) 49 => '19',
			(int) 50 => '20',
			(int) 51 => 'three',
			(int) 52 => '21',
			(int) 53 => 'two',
			(int) 54 => 'two'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Parmod Mehta',
			(int) 1 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 2 => 'Fulwa Devi',
			(int) 3 => 'Promod Mehta',
			(int) 4 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 5 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 6 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 7 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 8 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 9 => 'Basant Bigha',
			(int) 10 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 11 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
			(int) 12 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 13 => 'Kumar Singh',
			(int) 14 => 'S.I.',
			(int) 15 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 16 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 17 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
			(int) 18 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 19 => 'Fulwa Devi',
			(int) 20 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 21 => 'Dhaneshwar Mehta',
			(int) 22 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
			(int) 23 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 24 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 25 => 'Meena Singh',
			(int) 26 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 27 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 28 => 'Sitawa Devi',
			(int) 29 => 'Rokshati',
			(int) 30 => 'Ramashish Mehta',
			(int) 31 => 'Pramod Mehta',
			(int) 32 => 'P.W.4',
			(int) 33 => 'Donga',
			(int) 34 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 35 => 'Ram Pravesh Mehta',
			(int) 36 => 'S.I.',
			(int) 37 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 38 => 'Chulha',
			(int) 39 => 'Nathuni Mehta'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => '4th Additional Sessions',
			(int) 1 => 'Sections 304B',
			(int) 2 => 'Criminal Appeal',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 5 => 'Ext',
			(int) 6 => 'Ext',
			(int) 7 => 'P.W. 5 Dr.',
			(int) 8 => 'Sadar Hospital',
			(int) 9 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 10 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 11 => 'Ext',
			(int) 12 => 'FIR',
			(int) 13 => 'P.W. 7',
			(int) 14 => 'P.W. 7',
			(int) 15 => 'Ext',
			(int) 16 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 17 => 'Tandwa P.S. U.D. Case No',
			(int) 18 => 'Ext',
			(int) 19 => 'FIR',
			(int) 20 => 'Ext',
			(int) 21 => 'P.W. 6 (Ext',
			(int) 22 => 'P.W. 2 Ram Pravesh Mehta',
			(int) 23 => 'P.W. 7',
			(int) 24 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 25 => 'Learned Additional Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 26 => 'P.W. 1',
			(int) 27 => 'Ramashish Mehta P.W. 4',
			(int) 28 => 'P.W. 1',
			(int) 29 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 30 => 'P.W. 2',
			(int) 31 => 'U.D. Case',
			(int) 32 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
			(int) 33 => 'Ext',
			(int) 34 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 35 => 'the U.D. Case',
			(int) 36 => 'Court',
			(int) 37 => 'Court',
			(int) 38 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 39 => 'Court',
			(int) 40 => 'Court',
			(int) 41 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 42 => 'Court',
			(int) 43 => 'Section 304B',
			(int) 44 => 'Court'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '18th March 1997',
			(int) 1 => '19.3.1997',
			(int) 2 => 'seven years',
			(int) 3 => '1997',
			(int) 4 => 'the year 1992',
			(int) 5 => 'the last one month or so',
			(int) 6 => 'seven years',
			(int) 7 => '19.2.1995',
			(int) 8 => '1995',
			(int) 9 => 'about four years',
			(int) 10 => '1994',
			(int) 11 => 'the month',
			(int) 12 => 'the day',
			(int) 13 => '17 years',
			(int) 14 => '7 years',
			(int) 15 => '17 years',
			(int) 16 => 'a months',
			(int) 17 => 'today'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '100%',
			(int) 1 => '100%'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 1 => 'P.W. 7',
			(int) 2 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 3 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 4 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 5 => 'P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta',
			(int) 6 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 7 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 8 => 'P.W. 4',
			(int) 9 => 'P.W. 1',
			(int) 10 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 11 => 'Chulha',
			(int) 12 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 13 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 14 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 15 => 'P.W. 5'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'A.S.I.',
			(int) 1 => 'Agrahan',
			(int) 2 => 'Handi',
			(int) 3 => 'Handi',
			(int) 4 => 'Smt',
			(int) 5 => 'Singh'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jhopri',
			(int) 1 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 2 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 3 => 'P.Ws',
			(int) 4 => 'P.Ws'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'firstly',
			(int) 1 => 'first'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1151737',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 86 of 1997 ',
			'appellant' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another Vs. the State of Bihar',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Patna',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2014-04-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Three accused persons, i.e., the two appellants, spouses between themselves and their son Parmod Mehta, were put on trial by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad after being charged with committing offences under Sections 304B and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 18th March 1997, they were held guilty of committing the offence only under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. They were heard on sentence on 19.3.1997 and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. While the two appellants Nathuni Mehta and his wife Fulwa Devi preferred this appeal jointly, their son Promod Mehta separately preferred Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 129 of 1997, but it appears that while he was languishing in prison he died there and his appeal stood abated on that account as may appear from the order of the Court passed on 22.4.2014.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Some of the undisputed facts were that the deceased Sitawa Devi was married to Pramod Mehta sometimes in the year 1992. She was in her matrimonial house in the night intervening 26/27.1.1995. She had in fact been residing therein for the last one month or so. It is also not disputed that she died of burn injuries in her matrimonial house and that her death had occurred within seven years of being married to deceased-accused Pramod Mehta.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. It appears that appellant Nathuni Mehta lodged a report in respect of unnatural death of the said Sitawa Devi by stating that while she was steaming paddy grains for preparing rice, she caught fire and in order to saving herself jumped into a well. The villagers of Basant Bigha, i.e., the place of residence of the appellants, rushed to the well and salvaged the dead body of Sitawa Devi from inside the well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. As may appear from the evidence of P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh, who subsequently drew up his own statement in the form of Ext. 4 on 19.2.1995, that the U.D. Case was registered on the basis of Ext. 2 the written report of appellant Nathuni Mehta and on that basis the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to P.W. 5 Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh who was posted in Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad as the Medical Officer. It was stated by P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh that the post-mortem examination report which was submitted by P.W. 5 revealed that the smell of kerosene oil was coming out from the hairs and skull and the mouth of the dead body was partially opened, eyes were closed and reddish froth was coming out of the nostrils of the deceased. The dead body was found bearing 100% burn injuries which was covering the whole of the body of the deceased and only the skull and hairs had escaped from being burnt, otherwise the whole body was black in colour. In the opinion of P.W. 5 the death was on account of burn injuries caused by flames of fire induced by kerosene oil and thus, gave sufficient reasons to infer that it was case of murder. P.W. 6 stated that appellant Nathuni Mehta had purposely filed a wrong report regarding the unnatural death of deceased Sitawa Devi so as to misleading the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. On the basis of Ext. 4 written report of S.I. Ramswarup Singh (P.W. 6), the FIR of the case (Ext. 5) was drawn and the investigation was undertaken by P.W. 7 A.S.I. Tej Narayan Mandal who inspected the place of occurrence which was the house of the present appellants and arrested appellants Nathuni Mehta and Fulwa Devi and after concluding the investigation submitted charge sheet for their trial. During the course of inspection of the place of occurrence P.W. 7 had found the house, which was built up of thatch materials completely gutted. It was a small Jhopri.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Thus, what appeared from the evidence of P.W. 7 was that the story that the deceased was steaming paddy grains for preparing rice was not found true as none of the two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 6 and 7 had stated in their evidence that they had found any utensil or oven which was used for steaming paddy grains on or around the place of occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. During the course of the trial seven witnesses were produced by the prosecution and documents, like, the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 1), the inquest report (Ext. 3) and the statement of the appellant Nathuni Mehta on the basis of which Tandwa P.S. U.D. Case No. 7 of 1995 was drawn up (Ext. 2) were brought on record besides the FIR (Ext. 5) which was drawn up on the basis of the self written report of P.W. 6 (Ext. 4). P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta was the father of the deceased Sitawa Devi while P.W. 2 Ram Pravesh Mehta was her brother. P.W. 3 Dhaneshwar Mehta was tendered for cross-examination while P.W. 4 yet another brother of the deceased had come to support the prosecution case. P.W. 5, I have already noted was the doctor who had held post-mortem examination and whose report had given a turn to the whole case by indicating as if it were a case of homicide and not of unnatural death. P.W. 6 as pointed out earlier was the informant of the case, S.I. Ramswarup Singh and P.W. 7 had investigated into the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. The defence did not examine any witness in support of its case that Sitawa Devi had caught fire while steaming paddy and had jumped into a well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. On considering the evidence the impugned judgment was passed by which the three accused persons, i.e., the two appellants and the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but were convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Smt. Meena Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no date given by any of the witnesses as to on which the deceased was married to the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta. It was admitted by the witnesses that the marriage was dowryless but they stated that after the deceased had arrived into the house of the appellants, they had started demanding motorcycle and for that the deceased was being ill-treated and tortured which fact was narrated by her to her family members, like, P.W. 4 and others. It was contended that it could be a case of unnatural death as the description of the place of occurrence given by P.W. 6 in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his evidence could raise that probability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor was submitting that the evidence of witnesses were that of uninterested persons who came out in support of some of the circumstances attending on the commission of the offence and on considering the same it may be found that there was no need of interfering with the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta was the father of the deceased and he stated that his daughter was married about four years back to deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta and they were demanding a motorcycle in dowry and whenever Sitawa Devi came back to her parents house she used to relate the above demand of accused persons to her parents and others. It was further stated by P.W. 1 that on account of non-fulfillment of demand, the deceased was also being ill-treated and tortured so much so that she used to be assaulted also. It was stated that the demand was made firstly as soon as the deceased had come for the first time in her matrimonial house and again when she went back there after Rokshati the same demand was made and the same treatment was meted out to the deceased, the information about which was given to him by Ramashish Mehta P.W. 4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. P.W. 4 Ramashish Mehta the full brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1 also supported the allegations and facts stated by his father as regards the marriage of the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta and the demand of dowry by the accused persons and the ill-treatment and torture of the lady on that account. P.W.4 stated that the Donga ceremony was performed in 1994 in the month of Agrahan and many presents were given to the accused persons but they rejected them and snapped their relationship with them and he went there to the house of the accused persons when his sister had pointed out that if the motorcycle demanded by the accused persons, was not given to them they might kill her. P.W. 4 further stated that appellant Nathuni Mehta had also threatened that if the motorcycle had not been given then his sister would be killed. P.W. 4 stated that he attempted to reconcile the accused persons to the situation, but to no effect and he came back to his house and subsequently he and others of his family members learnt about the occurrence having occurred.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While addressing the court the learned counsel for the appellants had pointed out that during cross-examination P.W. 4 had admitted that he did not make any report about the ill-treatment or torture of his sister by the accused persons and it was submitted that the conduct of P.W. 4 was not only unnatural but absurd and improbable. The court finds no absurdity or improbability in the conduct of P.W. 4 or others of his family because marrying off a daughter by the parents is not only discharging the obligation by them, but it rather creates further responsibility also upon them to take all steps necessary so as to ensuring that the marriage succeeds. No father or brother could, in spite of some instances of ill-treatment or torture of the bride is as courageous and prompt in lodging reports about the misbehaviour either of the husband or of others of his family. The only psychological factor which forbids them to do so is that such a step may further compound the situation and make the parties irreconcilable. In that view the conduct of P.W. 4 or his father in not reporting the matter of ill-treatment or torture to any authority to me does not appear of any substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These are the only two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 1 and 4 with further support from P.W. 2, i.e., Ram Pravesh Mehta yet another brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1. He has also supported the story in its entirety as was done by P.Ws. 1 and 4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the investigating officer of U.D. Case, i.e., P.W. 6 who subsequently became the informant of the case, had found certain signs inside the house of the appellants which may give rise to the probability as if the deceased had been steaming paddy grains as was the initial case of appellant Nathuni Mehta contained in Ext. 2. I have considered the argument and I have perused the relevant paragraph-7 of the deposition of P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh who stated that he investigated into the fardbeyan of appellant Nathuni Mehta and he went to the place of occurrence and found that the house which was of thatch, had completely been gutted and paddy grains were scattered all over. A small box was also burnt and had become turtle. P.W. 6 found signs of pouring water on the roof in an attempt of dowsing the flames and he found a Chulha inside the house and also found a Handi (utensil) and further found some grains of paddy scattered there. The informant who was the investigating officer of the U.D. Case had not stated that he found any paddy kept in Handi. Further what I find is that the heat which was generated by the flames of fire was so intense and terrific that it had deformed a metal box so much so that it had become turtle. But, curiously enough, P.W. 6 was still finding paddy grains of rice intact on earth which this Court does not believe existing in such intense flames specially when a metal box had turned turtle. In the opinion of the Court those paddy grains which were found scattered around the Chulha inside the gutted house was probably a subsequent act of the accused persons in the chain of many acts which they committed so as to creating the evidence in their favour for diverting the attention of the investigating officer. What I find is that there was no evidence found by P.W. 6 after inspecting the gutted house showing that the deceased had been engaged in steaming paddy grains for preparing rice. This story was not borne out from the evidence of P.W. 6 or any of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. The other circumstance which appeared strongly against the accused persons was that as per their own story and as per the prosecution case also the deceased had caught fire and had jumped inside the well. At the time of jumping into the well the deceased was alive and if she had drown in water her stomach ought to have contained water as always happens in case of a living person drowning in water. The lungs of the deceased might also have contained sufficient water. But, what the doctor P.W. 5 found that the stomach was empty, the bladder was empty and the lungs was also empty. Thus the circumstance that the deceased was salvaged from the well was yet another circumstance against the accused persons which suggested that the deceased was definitely burnt to death and her dead body was put sometimes after into the water of the well to create a defence. That the deceased was burnt to death is as clear as the day light. If one could have considered the evidence of P.W. 5, one would find that smell of kerosene oil was coming out of the skull and hairs of the deceased. It was 100% burn injuries which had been induced as per the evidence of P.W. 5 by flames generated by using kerosene oil. The whole body was charred and was looking black, except the hair part of the head and skull.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The motive was that the deceased was not bringing the motorcycle and submission of Smt. Singh that it was a demand made subsequently by the accused persons after the marriage had been solemnized dowryless. If one could consider the definition of dowry and the evidence of witnesses, one could find that anything which was demanded for or in consideration of a marriage is dowry and witnesses like P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 stated that the deceased had been ill-treated and torture and the relationship with the witnesses had also been snapped by the accused persons. As such the demand was definitely for and in consideration of the marriage. The marriage was not terminated lawfully or even as could be terminated socially by expelling the lady or by abandoning her or even by deserting her, but by snapping the very life cord of the lady.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. The above are some of the circumstances which could have convinced the learned trial Judge to hold that it was a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code due to establishing completely they chains pointed out by me. But, unfortunately, the learned trial Judge was considering the evidence of the case as superficially as to fall in grave error in appreciating it and as such, was passing a perverse order of acquittal as respects the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The worst was that the said order was also not assailed in appeal by challenging that part of acquittal and this Court after 17 years could not suo-motu embark upon the reappraisal of evidence to up-turn the judgment of acquittal passed against the appellants. Even if there is no appeal this Court could very well say that the acquittal of the accused persons for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was rank perverse acquittal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. It could also be a case which could fully be covered by the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which requires that if the death of a lady occurring within 7 years of her marriage, is the question of enquiry by the court, and, it is reasonably shown that just prior to her death, she had been ill-treated or tortured either by her husband or any of his relatives in connection with dowry, the accused shall be deemed to have committed dowry death. The very provision requires the Court to presume that the accused had committed dowry death, if the ingredients of the offence of dowry death are established. The provision raises a statutory presumption against the accused if in case the ingredients of the offence are fully established. I have already noticed the evidence which was produced by the prosecution in the case and that evidence fully establishes all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In that light a presumption that the accused persons had committed the offence of dowry death, has to be drawn as per the very provision of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons have offered some explanation but the explanation which was offered by them was found palpably false and the same was set up in order to misleading the investigation of the offence which could be covered by the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. That additional false plea which was raised by the appellant Nathuni Mehta was yet another circumstance against the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. In view of the discussion just made in the light of the evidence, I am fully satisfied that an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was also made out on facts and the three accused persons had rightly been convicted for that offence. But, when it came to inflicting appropriate sentence, the learned trial judge appears again taking a very lenient view in imparting sentence. Again, after 17 years of the passing of the impugned judgment this Court does not feel inclined to revisit the order of sentence passed upon the appellants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The two appellants are on bail, their bonds are cancelled. Let them surrender before the court below in a months time from today else the court below shall take all steps necesary under law to ensure that the two appellants are arrested and remanded to custody for serving out the sentence passed upon them.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1151737'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Nathuni Mehta and Another Vs. the State of Bihar Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 2 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 3 => 'the U.D. Case',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 5 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 7 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 9 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 11 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 13 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 14 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 15 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 16 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 17 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 19 => 'the Indian Penal Code',
		(int) 20 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 21 => 'the Indian Penal Code'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => 'Three',
		(int) 2 => 'two',
		(int) 3 => '302/34',
		(int) 4 => 'two',
		(int) 5 => '129',
		(int) 6 => '22.4.2014',
		(int) 7 => '2',
		(int) 8 => '26/27.1.1995',
		(int) 9 => '3',
		(int) 10 => '4.',
		(int) 11 => '4',
		(int) 12 => '2',
		(int) 13 => '5.',
		(int) 14 => '4',
		(int) 15 => '6',
		(int) 16 => '5',
		(int) 17 => '6',
		(int) 18 => 'two',
		(int) 19 => '6',
		(int) 20 => 'seven',
		(int) 21 => '1',
		(int) 22 => '3',
		(int) 23 => '2',
		(int) 24 => '5',
		(int) 25 => '4',
		(int) 26 => '6',
		(int) 27 => '8.',
		(int) 28 => '9',
		(int) 29 => 'three',
		(int) 30 => 'two',
		(int) 31 => '7',
		(int) 32 => '8',
		(int) 33 => '11',
		(int) 34 => '12',
		(int) 35 => '13',
		(int) 36 => '4',
		(int) 37 => '4',
		(int) 38 => '14',
		(int) 39 => 'only two',
		(int) 40 => '1 and 4',
		(int) 41 => '1',
		(int) 42 => '15',
		(int) 43 => '2',
		(int) 44 => '16',
		(int) 45 => '17',
		(int) 46 => '1',
		(int) 47 => '2',
		(int) 48 => '18',
		(int) 49 => '19',
		(int) 50 => '20',
		(int) 51 => 'three',
		(int) 52 => '21',
		(int) 53 => 'two',
		(int) 54 => 'two'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Parmod Mehta',
		(int) 1 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 2 => 'Fulwa Devi',
		(int) 3 => 'Promod Mehta',
		(int) 4 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 5 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 6 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 7 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 8 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 9 => 'Basant Bigha',
		(int) 10 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 11 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
		(int) 12 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 13 => 'Kumar Singh',
		(int) 14 => 'S.I.',
		(int) 15 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 16 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 17 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
		(int) 18 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 19 => 'Fulwa Devi',
		(int) 20 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 21 => 'Dhaneshwar Mehta',
		(int) 22 => 'S.I. Ramswarup Singh',
		(int) 23 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 24 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 25 => 'Meena Singh',
		(int) 26 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 27 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 28 => 'Sitawa Devi',
		(int) 29 => 'Rokshati',
		(int) 30 => 'Ramashish Mehta',
		(int) 31 => 'Pramod Mehta',
		(int) 32 => 'P.W.4',
		(int) 33 => 'Donga',
		(int) 34 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 35 => 'Ram Pravesh Mehta',
		(int) 36 => 'S.I.',
		(int) 37 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 38 => 'Chulha',
		(int) 39 => 'Nathuni Mehta'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => '4th Additional Sessions',
		(int) 1 => 'Sections 304B',
		(int) 2 => 'Criminal Appeal',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 5 => 'Ext',
		(int) 6 => 'Ext',
		(int) 7 => 'P.W. 5 Dr.',
		(int) 8 => 'Sadar Hospital',
		(int) 9 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 10 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 11 => 'Ext',
		(int) 12 => 'FIR',
		(int) 13 => 'P.W. 7',
		(int) 14 => 'P.W. 7',
		(int) 15 => 'Ext',
		(int) 16 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 17 => 'Tandwa P.S. U.D. Case No',
		(int) 18 => 'Ext',
		(int) 19 => 'FIR',
		(int) 20 => 'Ext',
		(int) 21 => 'P.W. 6 (Ext',
		(int) 22 => 'P.W. 2 Ram Pravesh Mehta',
		(int) 23 => 'P.W. 7',
		(int) 24 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 25 => 'Learned Additional Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 26 => 'P.W. 1',
		(int) 27 => 'Ramashish Mehta P.W. 4',
		(int) 28 => 'P.W. 1',
		(int) 29 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 30 => 'P.W. 2',
		(int) 31 => 'U.D. Case',
		(int) 32 => 'Nathuni Mehta',
		(int) 33 => 'Ext',
		(int) 34 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 35 => 'the U.D. Case',
		(int) 36 => 'Court',
		(int) 37 => 'Court',
		(int) 38 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 39 => 'Court',
		(int) 40 => 'Court',
		(int) 41 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 42 => 'Court',
		(int) 43 => 'Section 304B',
		(int) 44 => 'Court'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '18th March 1997',
		(int) 1 => '19.3.1997',
		(int) 2 => 'seven years',
		(int) 3 => '1997',
		(int) 4 => 'the year 1992',
		(int) 5 => 'the last one month or so',
		(int) 6 => 'seven years',
		(int) 7 => '19.2.1995',
		(int) 8 => '1995',
		(int) 9 => 'about four years',
		(int) 10 => '1994',
		(int) 11 => 'the month',
		(int) 12 => 'the day',
		(int) 13 => '17 years',
		(int) 14 => '7 years',
		(int) 15 => '17 years',
		(int) 16 => 'a months',
		(int) 17 => 'today'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '100%',
		(int) 1 => '100%'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 1 => 'P.W. 7',
		(int) 2 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 3 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 4 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 5 => 'P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta',
		(int) 6 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 7 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 8 => 'P.W. 4',
		(int) 9 => 'P.W. 1',
		(int) 10 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 11 => 'Chulha',
		(int) 12 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 13 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 14 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 15 => 'P.W. 5'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'A.S.I.',
		(int) 1 => 'Agrahan',
		(int) 2 => 'Handi',
		(int) 3 => 'Handi',
		(int) 4 => 'Smt',
		(int) 5 => 'Singh'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jhopri',
		(int) 1 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 2 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 3 => 'P.Ws',
		(int) 4 => 'P.Ws'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'firstly',
		(int) 1 => 'first'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1151737',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 86 of 1997 ',
		'appellant' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Nathuni Mehta and Another Vs. the State of Bihar',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Patna',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2014-04-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'DHARNIDHAR JHA',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Three accused persons, i.e., the two appellants, spouses between themselves and their son Parmod Mehta, were put on trial by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad after being charged with committing offences under Sections 304B and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 18th March 1997, they were held guilty of committing the offence only under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. They were heard on sentence on 19.3.1997 and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. While the two appellants Nathuni Mehta and his wife Fulwa Devi preferred this appeal jointly, their son Promod Mehta separately preferred Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 129 of 1997, but it appears that while he was languishing in prison he died there and his appeal stood abated on that account as may appear from the order of the Court passed on 22.4.2014.<p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Some of the undisputed facts were that the deceased Sitawa Devi was married to Pramod Mehta sometimes in the year 1992. She was in her matrimonial house in the night intervening 26/27.1.1995. She had in fact been residing therein for the last one month or so. It is also not disputed that she died of burn injuries in her matrimonial house and that her death had occurred within seven years of being married to deceased-accused Pramod Mehta.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. It appears that appellant Nathuni Mehta lodged a report in respect of unnatural death of the said Sitawa Devi by stating that while she was steaming paddy grains for preparing rice, she caught fire and in order to saving herself jumped into a well. The villagers of Basant Bigha, i.e., the place of residence of the appellants, rushed to the well and salvaged the dead body of Sitawa Devi from inside the well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. As may appear from the evidence of P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh, who subsequently drew up his own statement in the form of Ext. 4 on 19.2.1995, that the U.D. Case was registered on the basis of Ext. 2 the written report of appellant Nathuni Mehta and on that basis the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to P.W. 5 Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh who was posted in Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad as the Medical Officer. It was stated by P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh that the post-mortem examination report which was submitted by P.W. 5 revealed that the smell of kerosene oil was coming out from the hairs and skull and the mouth of the dead body was partially opened, eyes were closed and reddish froth was coming out of the nostrils of the deceased. The dead body was found bearing 100% burn injuries which was covering the whole of the body of the deceased and only the skull and hairs had escaped from being burnt, otherwise the whole body was black in colour. In the opinion of P.W. 5 the death was on account of burn injuries caused by flames of fire induced by kerosene oil and thus, gave sufficient reasons to infer that it was case of murder. P.W. 6 stated that appellant Nathuni Mehta had purposely filed a wrong report regarding the unnatural death of deceased Sitawa Devi so as to misleading the investigation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. On the basis of Ext. 4 written report of S.I. Ramswarup Singh (P.W. 6), the FIR of the case (Ext. 5) was drawn and the investigation was undertaken by P.W. 7 A.S.I. Tej Narayan Mandal who inspected the place of occurrence which was the house of the present appellants and arrested appellants Nathuni Mehta and Fulwa Devi and after concluding the investigation submitted charge sheet for their trial. During the course of inspection of the place of occurrence P.W. 7 had found the house, which was built up of thatch materials completely gutted. It was a small Jhopri.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. Thus, what appeared from the evidence of P.W. 7 was that the story that the deceased was steaming paddy grains for preparing rice was not found true as none of the two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 6 and 7 had stated in their evidence that they had found any utensil or oven which was used for steaming paddy grains on or around the place of occurrence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. During the course of the trial seven witnesses were produced by the prosecution and documents, like, the post-mortem examination report (Ext. 1), the inquest report (Ext. 3) and the statement of the appellant Nathuni Mehta on the basis of which Tandwa P.S. U.D. Case No. 7 of 1995 was drawn up (Ext. 2) were brought on record besides the FIR (Ext. 5) which was drawn up on the basis of the self written report of P.W. 6 (Ext. 4). P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta was the father of the deceased Sitawa Devi while P.W. 2 Ram Pravesh Mehta was her brother. P.W. 3 Dhaneshwar Mehta was tendered for cross-examination while P.W. 4 yet another brother of the deceased had come to support the prosecution case. P.W. 5, I have already noted was the doctor who had held post-mortem examination and whose report had given a turn to the whole case by indicating as if it were a case of homicide and not of unnatural death. P.W. 6 as pointed out earlier was the informant of the case, S.I. Ramswarup Singh and P.W. 7 had investigated into the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. The defence did not examine any witness in support of its case that Sitawa Devi had caught fire while steaming paddy and had jumped into a well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. On considering the evidence the impugned judgment was passed by which the three accused persons, i.e., the two appellants and the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but were convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. Smt. Meena Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no date given by any of the witnesses as to on which the deceased was married to the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta. It was admitted by the witnesses that the marriage was dowryless but they stated that after the deceased had arrived into the house of the appellants, they had started demanding motorcycle and for that the deceased was being ill-treated and tortured which fact was narrated by her to her family members, like, P.W. 4 and others. It was contended that it could be a case of unnatural death as the description of the place of occurrence given by P.W. 6 in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his evidence could raise that probability.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor was submitting that the evidence of witnesses were that of uninterested persons who came out in support of some of the circumstances attending on the commission of the offence and on considering the same it may be found that there was no need of interfering with the impugned judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta was the father of the deceased and he stated that his daughter was married about four years back to deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta and they were demanding a motorcycle in dowry and whenever Sitawa Devi came back to her parents house she used to relate the above demand of accused persons to her parents and others. It was further stated by P.W. 1 that on account of non-fulfillment of demand, the deceased was also being ill-treated and tortured so much so that she used to be assaulted also. It was stated that the demand was made firstly as soon as the deceased had come for the first time in her matrimonial house and again when she went back there after Rokshati the same demand was made and the same treatment was meted out to the deceased, the information about which was given to him by Ramashish Mehta P.W. 4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 13. P.W. 4 Ramashish Mehta the full brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1 also supported the allegations and facts stated by his father as regards the marriage of the deceased-appellant Pramod Mehta and the demand of dowry by the accused persons and the ill-treatment and torture of the lady on that account. P.W.4 stated that the Donga ceremony was performed in 1994 in the month of Agrahan and many presents were given to the accused persons but they rejected them and snapped their relationship with them and he went there to the house of the accused persons when his sister had pointed out that if the motorcycle demanded by the accused persons, was not given to them they might kill her. P.W. 4 further stated that appellant Nathuni Mehta had also threatened that if the motorcycle had not been given then his sister would be killed. P.W. 4 stated that he attempted to reconcile the accused persons to the situation, but to no effect and he came back to his house and subsequently he and others of his family members learnt about the occurrence having occurred.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 14. While addressing the court the learned counsel for the appellants had pointed out that during cross-examination P.W. 4 had admitted that he did not make any report about the ill-treatment or torture of his sister by the accused persons and it was submitted that the conduct of P.W. 4 was not only unnatural but absurd and improbable. The court finds no absurdity or improbability in the conduct of P.W. 4 or others of his family because marrying off a daughter by the parents is not only discharging the obligation by them, but it rather creates further responsibility also upon them to take all steps necessary so as to ensuring that the marriage succeeds. No father or brother could, in spite of some instances of ill-treatment or torture of the bride is as courageous and prompt in lodging reports about the misbehaviour either of the husband or of others of his family. The only psychological factor which forbids them to do so is that such a step may further compound the situation and make the parties irreconcilable. In that view the conduct of P.W. 4 or his father in not reporting the matter of ill-treatment or torture to any authority to me does not appear of any substance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These are the only two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 1 and 4 with further support from P.W. 2, i.e., Ram Pravesh Mehta yet another brother of the deceased and son of P.W. 1. He has also supported the story in its entirety as was done by P.Ws. 1 and 4.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the investigating officer of U.D. Case, i.e., P.W. 6 who subsequently became the informant of the case, had found certain signs inside the house of the appellants which may give rise to the probability as if the deceased had been steaming paddy grains as was the initial case of appellant Nathuni Mehta contained in Ext. 2. I have considered the argument and I have perused the relevant paragraph-7 of the deposition of P.W. 6 S.I. Ramswarup Singh who stated that he investigated into the fardbeyan of appellant Nathuni Mehta and he went to the place of occurrence and found that the house which was of thatch, had completely been gutted and paddy grains were scattered all over. A small box was also burnt and had become turtle. P.W. 6 found signs of pouring water on the roof in an attempt of dowsing the flames and he found a Chulha inside the house and also found a Handi (utensil) and further found some grains of paddy scattered there. The informant who was the investigating officer of the U.D. Case had not stated that he found any paddy kept in Handi. Further what I find is that the heat which was generated by the flames of fire was so intense and terrific that it had deformed a metal box so much so that it had become turtle. But, curiously enough, P.W. 6 was still finding paddy grains of rice intact on earth which this Court does not believe existing in such intense flames specially when a metal box had turned turtle. In the opinion of the Court those paddy grains which were found scattered around the Chulha inside the gutted house was probably a subsequent act of the accused persons in the chain of many acts which they committed so as to creating the evidence in their favour for diverting the attention of the investigating officer. What I find is that there was no evidence found by P.W. 6 after inspecting the gutted house showing that the deceased had been engaged in steaming paddy grains for preparing rice. This story was not borne out from the evidence of P.W. 6 or any of the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 16. The other circumstance which appeared strongly against the accused persons was that as per their own story and as per the prosecution case also the deceased had caught fire and had jumped inside the well. At the time of jumping into the well the deceased was alive and if she had drown in water her stomach ought to have contained water as always happens in case of a living person drowning in water. The lungs of the deceased might also have contained sufficient water. But, what the doctor P.W. 5 found that the stomach was empty, the bladder was empty and the lungs was also empty. Thus the circumstance that the deceased was salvaged from the well was yet another circumstance against the accused persons which suggested that the deceased was definitely burnt to death and her dead body was put sometimes after into the water of the well to create a defence. That the deceased was burnt to death is as clear as the day light. If one could have considered the evidence of P.W. 5, one would find that smell of kerosene oil was coming out of the skull and hairs of the deceased. It was 100% burn injuries which had been induced as per the evidence of P.W. 5 by flames generated by using kerosene oil. The whole body was charred and was looking black, except the hair part of the head and skull.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 17. The motive was that the deceased was not bringing the motorcycle and submission of Smt. Singh that it was a demand made subsequently by the accused persons after the marriage had been solemnized dowryless. If one could consider the definition of dowry and the evidence of witnesses, one could find that anything which was demanded for or in consideration of a marriage is dowry and witnesses like P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 stated that the deceased had been ill-treated and torture and the relationship with the witnesses had also been snapped by the accused persons. As such the demand was definitely for and in consideration of the marriage. The marriage was not terminated lawfully or even as could be terminated socially by expelling the lady or by abandoning her or even by deserting her, but by snapping the very life cord of the lady.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 18. The above are some of the circumstances which could have convinced the learned trial Judge to hold that it was a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code due to establishing completely they chains pointed out by me. But, unfortunately, the learned trial Judge was considering the evidence of the case as superficially as to fall in grave error in appreciating it and as such, was passing a perverse order of acquittal as respects the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The worst was that the said order was also not assailed in appeal by challenging that part of acquittal and this Court after 17 years could not suo-motu embark upon the reappraisal of evidence to up-turn the judgment of acquittal passed against the appellants. Even if there is no appeal this Court could very well say that the acquittal of the accused persons for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was rank perverse acquittal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 19. It could also be a case which could fully be covered by the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code which requires that if the death of a lady occurring within 7 years of her marriage, is the question of enquiry by the court, and, it is reasonably shown that just prior to her death, she had been ill-treated or tortured either by her husband or any of his relatives in connection with dowry, the accused shall be deemed to have committed dowry death. The very provision requires the Court to presume that the accused had committed dowry death, if the ingredients of the offence of dowry death are established. The provision raises a statutory presumption against the accused if in case the ingredients of the offence are fully established. I have already noticed the evidence which was produced by the prosecution in the case and that evidence fully establishes all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In that light a presumption that the accused persons had committed the offence of dowry death, has to be drawn as per the very provision of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons have offered some explanation but the explanation which was offered by them was found palpably false and the same was set up in order to misleading the investigation of the offence which could be covered by the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. That additional false plea which was raised by the appellant Nathuni Mehta was yet another circumstance against the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 20. In view of the discussion just made in the light of the evidence, I am fully satisfied that an offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was also made out on facts and the three accused persons had rightly been convicted for that offence. But, when it came to inflicting appropriate sentence, the learned trial judge appears again taking a very lenient view in imparting sentence. Again, after 17 years of the passing of the impugned judgment this Court does not feel inclined to revisit the order of sentence passed upon the appellants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 21. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The two appellants are on bail, their bonds are cancelled. Let them surrender before the court below in a months time from today else the court below shall take all steps necesary under law to ensure that the two appellants are arrested and remanded to custody for serving out the sentence passed upon them.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Bihar',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1151737'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: the Indian Penal Code, Section 304B, the Indian Penal Code, the U.D. Case, Section 302, the Indian Penal Code, Section 304B, the Indian Penal Code, Section 302, the Indian Penal Code, Section 302, the Indian Penal Code, Section 302, the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Penal Code, Section 304B, the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Penal Code, Section 302, the Indian Penal Code, Section 304B, the Indian Penal Code

CARDINAL: 1, Three, two, 302/34, two, 129, 22.4.2014, 2, 26/27.1.1995, 3, 4., 4, 2, 5., 4, 6, 5, 6, two, 6, seven, 1, 3, 2, 5, 4, 6, 8., 9, three, two, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 4, 4, 14, only two, 1 and 4, 1, 15, 2, 16, 17, 1, 2, 18, 19, 20, three, 21, two, two

PERSON: Parmod Mehta, Nathuni Mehta, Fulwa Devi, Promod Mehta, Sitawa Devi, Pramod Mehta, Pramod Mehta, Nathuni Mehta, Sitawa Devi, Basant Bigha, Sitawa Devi, S.I. Ramswarup Singh, Nathuni Mehta, Kumar Singh, S.I., Nathuni Mehta, Sitawa Devi, S.I. Ramswarup Singh, Nathuni Mehta, Fulwa Devi, Sitawa Devi, Dhaneshwar Mehta, S.I. Ramswarup Singh, Sitawa Devi, Pramod Mehta, Meena Singh, Pramod Mehta, Pramod Mehta, Sitawa Devi, Rokshati, Ramashish Mehta, Pramod Mehta, P.W.4, Donga, Nathuni Mehta, Ram Pravesh Mehta, S.I., Nathuni Mehta, Chulha, Nathuni Mehta

ORG: 4th Additional Sessions, Sections 304B, Criminal Appeal, Court, P.W. 6, Ext, Ext, P.W. 5 Dr., Sadar Hospital, P.W. 6, P.W. 5, Ext, FIR, P.W. 7, P.W. 7, Ext, Nathuni Mehta, Tandwa P.S. U.D. Case No, Ext, FIR, Ext, P.W. 6 (Ext, P.W. 2 Ram Pravesh Mehta, P.W. 7, P.W. 6, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W. 1, Ramashish Mehta P.W. 4, P.W. 1, P.W. 4, P.W. 2, U.D. Case, Nathuni Mehta, Ext, P.W. 6, the U.D. Case, Court, Court, P.W. 6, Court, Court, Section 304B, Court, Section 304B, Court

DATE: 18th March 1997, 19.3.1997, seven years, 1997, the year 1992, the last one month or so, seven years, 19.2.1995, 1995, about four years, 1994, the month, the day, 17 years, 7 years, 17 years, a months, today

PERCENT: 100%, 100%

PRODUCT: P.W. 5, P.W. 7, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 4, P.W. 1 Ramdeo Mehta, P.W. 4, P.W. 4, P.W. 4, P.W. 1, P.W. 6, Chulha, P.W. 6, P.W. 5, P.W. 5, P.W. 5

GPE: A.S.I., Agrahan, Handi, Handi, Smt, Singh

NORP: Jhopri, P.Ws, P.Ws, P.Ws, P.Ws

ORDINAL: firstly, first