Dismissed

Punia Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2018Cr.A(DB)/497/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed criminal appeals against convictions for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC and concocting evidence under Section 201 IPC. The Court held that the prosecution evidence, supported by the deceased's parents, proved cruelty for dowry demand, poisoning, and hanging, negating suicide claims. Bail was cancelled for one appellant.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed; bail of appellant Punia Devi cancelled with direction to surrender to lower court; victims directed for compensation under S. 357-A Cr.P.C.

Punia Devi Vs State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1668 of 2006

¶2

With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶5

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1668 of 2006

¶6

With

¶7

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006

¶8

¶9

(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2006 and Order of sentence dated 01.03.2006, passed by the 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Dumka, in Sessions Case No.283 of 2004)

¶10

Uttom Layak .… Appellant (In Cr. Appeal No. 1668 of 2006) Punia Devi .… Appellant (In Cr. Appeal No. 497 of 2006)

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent (In both the appeals)

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B.MANGALMURTI

¶15

------For the Appellants : M/s. Dr. Amita Srivastav, Amicus Curiae For the State : M/s. A.P.P.

¶16

¶17

By Court.:- Both these appeals arise out of the common Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, as such, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

¶18

Heard learned amicus curiae appointed by the Court for the appellants, as also learned counsel for the State.

¶19

The appellants in both these appeals are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2006 and Order of sentence dated 01.03.2006, passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Dumka, in Sessions Case No.283 of 2004, whereby these appellants, who are the husband and the mother-in-law respectively, of the deceased, along with Jagdish Layak, the father-in-law of the deceased, have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point sentence, the appellant Uttom Layak, who is the husband of the deceased, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the mother-in-law and father-inlaw were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the said offence. The appellants have further been sentenced to undergo

¶20

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1668 of 2006 With

¶21

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006 - 2 -

¶22

R.I for three years with fine of Rs.1000/- each, for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and both these sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶23

It may be stated that during the pendency of these appeals the co-appellant Jagdish Layak, the father-in-law of the deceased died, and accordingly, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006 abated qua the appellant Jagdish Layak and his name was deleted from the array of appellants.

¶24

The prosecution case was instituted on basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Jagdish Mal, the father of the deceased Chiliya Devi, recorded near the dead body of his daughter, on 29.04.2004 at about 1:30 P.M., at Jamni forest, situated within P.S. Jarmundi, District Dumka, wherein he has stated that he had married his daughter to Uttom Layak, son of Jagdish Layak about two to three years ago. Thereafter, his daughter was living at her in-laws' place, but she used to complain that her husband and in-laws were subjecting her to cruelty and torture for demand of calf and Rs.3,000/- in dowry. The informant had given the calf to the in-laws of his daughter, but he could not give the money, due to which she was being subjected to cruelty and torture. She came to her parents' house, due to the said ill-treatment. On the previous Friday, his daughter was taken back to her in-laws' place by her husband, and on 28.04.2004 her mother had gone to her daughter's place with the Prasad of the Sun God, but she could not meet anyone there and came back. Thereafter, the informant also went to her in-laws' place and found the house locked and no one was there. He found the dead body of his daughter hanging on a palash tree in the forest. Thereafter he was going to inform the police, but the police arrived there and he gave his fardbeyan, stating that his daughter was killed due to demand of dowry and her dead body was hanged on the palash tree. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 70 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 393 of 2004, was instituted for the offences under Sections 304-B, 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the accused persons, who are the husband and the parents-inlaw of the deceased.

¶25

With

¶26

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006 - 3 -

¶27

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1668 of 2006

¶28

After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 304-B / 34 and 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accuseds' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the I.O., and the Doctor, who was a member of Board of Doctors, conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-4 Suman Layak and P.W.-5 Jeetan Manjhi have only been tendered by the prosecution. No witness was examined by the defence.

¶29

P.W.-6 Jagdish Mal is the informant of the case and the father of the deceased. This witness has supported the prosecution case, stating that the deceased was his daughter, whom he had married to the accused Uttom Layak about four years ago. He has stated that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry at her in-laws’ place for the demand of calf and Rs.3000/-, and when he showed his inability, he was asked to give the calf, which he gave, but the accused persons continued to subject her to cruelty and torture for the demand of money. He has stated that due to the torture, her daughter came back to his place. Thereafter, her husband took her to her matrimonial home, assuring that she would be kept properly. On 28^th April, her mother had gone to her matrimonial home with the Prasad of the Sun God, but no one was found in her in-laws’ place and the house was locked. On the next day, he went with seven persons and found the dead body in Jamni forest, hanging on a tree. The in-laws’ were not to be found. He had given the fardbeyan to the police on which he had put his signature, which he has identified, and the same was marked Exhibit-1/1. He has stated that the accused persons had committed the dowry death of his daughter and had hanged the dead body on the tree. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Jamni forest was situated at a distance of about 1½ Km. from her in-laws' place and he had not seen the accused persons causing her death. He has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. To the Court’s question, this witness has replied that the accused persons were subjecting his daughter to cruelty and torture for the demand of Rs.3,000/-.

¶30

With

¶31

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006 - 4 -

¶32

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1668 of 2006

¶33

P.W.-3 Mahamani Devi, is the mother of the deceased, and she has fully supported the prosecution case as stated by her husband, the informant. She has also stated in her evidence that her daughter requested to give at least a calf to the accused persons, which was given to the accused persons, but still she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of money and thereafter, she returned to her parents’ home. Thereafter, her husband took her back on the assurance that he would keep her properly and soon thereafter, she went to her place with the Prasad of the Sun God, but no one was there in the village. She was informed by one person that she was killed and her dead body was hanged on a tree. Thereafter, she came back and informed her family members. She has stated that thereafter 5-7 persons went to her matrimonial home, but no one was found at her matrimonial home. Subsequently, they found the dead body hanging on a tree and thereafter, the police was informed. She has also identified the accused persons in the Court. There is nothing of much importance in her cross-examination, except that she has denied the suggestion that her daughter had committed suicide.

¶34

P.W.-1 Duban Mal is the brother of the deceased, and P.W.-2 Sheo Charan Mal is the cousin of the deceased, and these witnesses have also fully supported the prosecution case as stated by the informant. P.W.-1 Duban Mal is also the witness to the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased, and he has proved his signature on the inquest report, which was marked Exhibit-1. In his cross -examination, P.W.-1 Duban Mal has stated that the demand of dowry was not made from him, rather it was made from his father. Both these witnesses have also stated that at times, she used to come back to her parents’ home and P.W.-2 Sheo Charan Mal has clarified that due to the cruelty and torture she used to come back.

¶35

P.W.-7 is Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha, who is one of the members of the Board of Doctors, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 30.4.2004. He has stated that the other two members of the Board were Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Sinha and Dr. Sita Ram Sah, and the report was prepared by him, on which, all of them had put their signatures. He has identified the post-mortem report,

¶36

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1668 of 2006 With

¶37

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006 - 5 -

¶38

which was marked Exhibit-3. He has stated that the body was smelling and was decomposed with blisters. There was no ante-mortem injury over the body of the deceased, and no definite opinion could be made regarding the cause of her death, hence, viscera were preserved. He has stated that time elapsed since death was about 96 hours.

¶39

P.W.-8 is Bishnu Ram, who is the I.O of the case. This witness has stated that on 29.4.2004, he was posted as A.S.I. Police at Jarmundi Police Station. He had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, which he has proved, which was marked Exhibit-3 (subsequently corrected as Ext.-3A). He has also proved the endorsements on the fardbeyan, which were marked Exhibits-4 and 4/1 respectively, and the formal FIR was proved by him and the same was marked Exhibit-5. This witness has stated that he recorded the re-statement of the informant and he inspected the place of occurrence which is a forest, and the dead body was found hanging on a palash tree. He prepared the inquest report which also he has proved, and the same was marked Exhibit-6. He has stated that the forest was situated at a distance of about 1 Km from the house of the accused. He received the post-mortem report and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation.

¶40

The prosecution has also proved the Forensic Science Laboratory Report of the viscera of the deceased, which was marked Exhibit-2. This viscera report shows that Endosulfan, which is a chloro-organic pesticide, and is poisonous, had been found in the viscera of the deceased.

¶41

The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused, Uttom Layak has admitted that the deceased was his wife. They have, however, denied the evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence in the case. on the basis of the evidence on record, the accused appellants were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

¶42

Learned amicus curiae for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly interested witnesses, being the close relative of the deceased. It is submitted that the medical

¶43

With

¶44

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006

¶45

¶46

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1668 of 2006

¶47

evidence of P.W.-7 Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha would show that there was no ante-mortem injury on the dead body of the deceased, which clearly goes to show that there was no evidence of any torture or subjecting the deceased to cruelty, and as such, the evidence of the highly interested witnesses that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture, could not be proved. Learned counsel submitted that in any event, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased had herself consumed the poison. Learned counsel submits that in the facts of the case, the appellants ought to have been given the benefits of doubt.

¶48

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that P.W.-1 Duban Mal, the brother of the deceased, P.W.-2 Sheo Charan Mal, the cousin of the deceased, and P.W.-3 and P.W.-6, viz., Mahamani Devi and Jagdish Mal, the parents of the deceased have fully supported the prosecution case, stating that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of one calf and Rs.3000/- as dowry, and the cruelty and torture to her continued even though, the calf was given to the accused persons. These witnesses have also supported the fact that soon before the occurrence, the deceased who had come to her parents’ place being fed up of cruelty and torture, was taken back by her husband upon the assurance that she would be kept properly, but soon thereafter, she was done to death, and the dead body was found hanging from a Palash tree in the forest. Learned counsel submitted that the viscera report would show that the death was caused due to poisoning, and in that view of the matter, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below.

¶49

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that that the prosecution case is fully supported by the family members of the deceased, including the mother and father of the deceased. The brother and cousin of the deceased have also fully supported the prosecution case. They have admitted in the cross-examination that she used to come back on her own, to her parent’s place due to the ill-treatment her by the in-laws. The evidence on record clearly shows that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture

¶50

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006 - 7 -

¶51

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1668 of 2006 With

¶52

for the demand of a calf and Rs.3,000/- in dowry, and even though at the request of the daughter, the calf was given to her in-laws, but the cruelty and torture continued upon her for the demand of money. Being fed up thereafter, she came back to her parent’s place, but only few days before the dead body was found, she was taken to her matrimonial home by the husband with the assurance to keep her properly. It appears that soon thereafter, she was done to death and her dead body was hanged on a tree in the forest, and the post-mortem examination could be done after about 96 hours, by which time the dead body was decomposed. The report of the Board of Doctors conducting the post-mortem examination clearly shows that no cause of death could be ascertained, which clearly rules out the fact that she had committed suicide by hanging herself. As pesticide was found in the viscera, as is proved by Exhibit-2, it is a clear case that she was done to death and thereafter her dead body was hanged. There is evidence to show that the deceased was done to death in about 2-3 years of her marriage.

¶53

On the basis of the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against both the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court.

¶54

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2006 and Order of sentence dated 01.03.2006, passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Dumka, in Sessions Case No.283 of 2004, convicting and sentencing both the appellants Uttom Layak and Punia Devi for the offences under Sections 304-B / 34 and 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant Uttom Layak is already in custody undergoing the sentence. The appellant Punia Devi is on bail. Her bail is cancelled and she is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith for serving out her sentence. The Court below is also directed to the issue process forthwith, compelling her surrender / production in the Court below for serving out the sentence.

¶55

Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance by the learned amicus curiae

¶56

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 497 of 2006

¶57

¶58

M/s Dr. Amita Srivastava. We accordingly, direct the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curiae . Let a copy of this Judgement be sent to the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, for the needful.

¶59

In the facts of this case, we find that P.W.-3 Mahamani Devi and P.W.-6 Jagdish Mal, who are the parents of the deceased, are the victims of crime, and they should be adequately compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme, under Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. We accordingly, direct the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, to take appropriate steps in the matter, in consultation with the concerned District Legal Services Authority, so that the victims of the crime are adequately compensated. Let a copy of this Judgement be also sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful.

¶60

There is no merit in both these appeals, which are accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgement.

¶61

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated the 10^th of July, 2018. D.S-.B.S/ N.A.F.R.

Punia Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punia Devi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagat Kishore Mahto Alias Jagat Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budhinath Baskey Alias Buddhinath Baskey And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Gobardhan Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Kartik Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand

Uttam Layak Vs State of Jharkhand

Anand Kumar Ram And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand