Allowed

Babu Lal Gope v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Mar 2024Cr.A(SJ)/18/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dowry-death conviction challenged on the ground that the body recovered near Gomo railway station was never established as the deceased's: autopsy showed age 35 and non-pregnant against the FIR's 19-year-old pregnant bride, identification photographs were unproved and the IO was not examined. The High Court held the unnatural death unproven, denied the benefit of the dowry-death presumption, and a

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 304B IPC and sentence set aside; appellant entitled to benefit of doubt; sureties discharged from bail bonds.

Babu Lal Gope Vs State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.18 of 2013

¶4

(Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 22.12.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad, in S.T. Case No. 350 of 2001 (arising out of Baghmara (Mahuda) P.S. Case No.127 of 2000 & G.R. No.2858 of 2000)].

Babu Lal Gope

…. Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent

¶9

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

….. For the Appellant : Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate For the State : APP

¶11

By Court:- Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

¶12

1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 22.12.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions JudgeVI, Dhanbad, in S.T. Case No. 350 of 2001 [arising out of Baghmara (Mahuda) P.S. Case No.127 of 2000 & G.R. No.2058 of 2000] whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years.

¶13

2. Informant [Mangu Gope] of the case is father of the deceased and as per the FIR, she (aged nineteen years) was married with the appellant/accused, Babu Lal Gope. After the marriage, on 02.07.2000, she had come from her matrimonial home and complained that his son in law was making dowry demand of Rs.40,000/-. The informant paid Rs.10,000/- after taking friendly loan. On 11.07.2000, when the informant went to the matrimonial home of his daughter for looking after her, it was informed by her sister in law (Manjhli Gotani) that she had fled away on Sunday. It is alleged that during course of her search, it was found that she had been killed and thrown away near Gomo Railway Station. When Gomo Railway Police Station was contacted regarding the same, it was informed that a dismembered body of girl had been sent for post-mortem examination. He identified the dead-body by photograph and at the time of incidence, she was pregnant by six months. It is also alleged that on earlier occasion also, his daughter was harassed in reference to unlawful demand.

¶14

3. On the basis of the statement of the informant, Baghmara (Mahuda) P.S. Case No.127 of 2000 was registered under Section 304 B /201 /34 IPC against the appellant and his family members total eight in number.

¶15

¶16

4. The Police on investigation found the case to be true and submitted charge-sheet. Thereafter the appellant and other family members were put on trial for the offence under Sections 304 B /201 /34 IPC.

¶17

5. Altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents/ post-mortem examination report, inquest report along with a report of U.D. Case were adduced into evidence on behalf of the prosecution.

¶18

6. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/ appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and thereafter learned Trial Court convicted the appellant and acquitted all other accused persons. It was held that the death occurred within the 7 years of marriage and in view of the dowry demand, presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act was drawn which could not be rebutted by the defence.

¶19

7. It is argued by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case rests upon the recovery of the dead-body from Gomo Railway Station. A bare scrutiny of the post-mortem report (Ext.3) and the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant will show that dead-body as stated to be that of the deceased has not been established. In the written report, it is stated that at the relevant time, the deceased was 19 years old and was pregnant by six months, whereas as per the post-mortem examination report, the age of the dead-body was ascertained of about 35 years to be of a lady who was non-pregnant at the said time. Inquest also refers to the age of the deceased to be 35 years and head having been totally severed from the body.

¶20

8. It is submitted that furthermore the identification was made on the basis of photograph shown to the informant, but the photograph(s) has not been brought on record. Inquest report Ext.6 Col. 4 wherein it has been stated that the head has been severed from the body and part of body below the neck was to the south of the railway line and the other part was inside the track whereas in the photograph, the head is not severed from the body.

¶21

9. Learned APP has defended the Judgment of the trial Court, but has failed to explain the serious discrepancies appearing in the identification of the dead body.

¶22

10. In order to prove the charge under Section 304 B of the IPC, it needs to be established that the unnatural death took place within 7 years of the marriage and there was dowry demand soon before her death. In the present case as per the FIR the deceased was aged 19 years and the marriage was performed 15 months before the said incidence and she was also pregnant by 6 months at that time. Autopsy surgeon (PW-7) has assessed the age to be 35 years and found that the dead body was non-pregnant. Father of the deceased and informant of

¶23

¶24

the case (PW-3) have deposed on the point of identification that identification of the dead body was made on the basis of the photographs on at Gomo Railway station. The said photograph has not been formally proved. The IO has not been examined.

¶25

11. It is specific difference of the Appellant/ accused that the dead body was not of his wife. The deceased was residing in her parents’ house and had disappeared from there.

¶26

12. On these materials, this Court is of the view, prosecution has failed to establish that the dead body so recovered from Gomo railway track was that of Lakshmania Devi, wife of the Appellant. In the absence of proof of unnatural death, a presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn. Even if it is assumed that the Appellant failed to trace out his wife, it will not make out an offence for which he has been charged. Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is accordingly set aside.

¶27

Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶28

Sureties are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

¶29

Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned

¶30

at once.

¶31

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶32

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 06.03.2024. sandeep/

Babu Lal Gope v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal Gope 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

Rohit Modi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shivcharan Marandi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Uco Bank, Bit Mesra Branch Vs Smt.Renu Sharma And Ors.

Faizur Rahman Vs State of Jharkhand Thr CBI

Munna Sah Alias Munna Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand

Chitrapati Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand