Allowed

Meena Devi v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Feb 2014CR. APP (SJ)/1112/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for offences under IPC 304(B), 498(A), 323 and Dowry Prohibition Act allowed. Appeal allowed on account of trial court's failure to administer oath to defence witnesses and violation of Section 276 Cr.P.C. while recording depositions, rendering judgment illegal. Matter remitted for fresh trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside. Matter remitted to lower court to proceed afresh from stage of defence. Bail bond cancelled with direction to surrender.

Meena Devi Vs the State of Bihar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1112 of 2011

¶3

=========================================================== MEENA DEVI, WIFE OF NANDLAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGEMALAUDHA, POLICE STATION-BASNAHI, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anant Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP Mrs. Abha Singh, APP ===========================================================

¶4

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV JUDGMENT

¶5

Date:6-02-2014

¶6

1. Sole appellant Meena Devi who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304(B) IPC, 498(A) IPC, 323 IPC, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide judgment dated 06-08-2011 and directed to undergo R.I. for seven years, R.I. for three years as well as fined Rs.2000/-, R.I. for one year, R.I. for two years as well as fined Rs.3000/- and in default thereof to undergo period of three months incarceration additionally with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide order dated 09.08.2011 by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,

¶7

¶8

VI^th , Saharsa in Sessions Trial No.50 of 2009 has challenged the same under instant appeal.

¶9

2. PW-5, Bhuto Paswan, Chowkidar gave his fardbeyan on 08-04-2006 alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 08:00 A.M., while he was at his house came to know that wife of Sanjay Das has died on account of assault made by Sanjay Das in the preceding night. He has gone to the house of Sanjay Das and found him absconding. Dead body of Mamta Devi was lying at the Verandah of a room facing East, froth was coming out. On query, villagers have disclosed that since a week quarrel was going on in between father, mother and Sanjay Das at one side with the deceased at other and on account thereof, mother of Sanjay Das had gone to Naya Nagar. Thereafter, Sanjay Das abused his wife as well as had also assaulted her. They have also disclosed that on account of lecherous conduct of Sanjay Das during course of conversation with women coming at his flour mill, quarrel amongst spouse was a regular feature and in the aforesaid background, he has apprehension that after departure of father and mother, in connivance thereof by way of administering poison had committed murder.

¶10

¶11

3. On the basis of aforesaid information, Basnahi P.S. Case No.16 of 2006 was registered and investigation was taken up. At an earlier occasion keeping the investigation pending against appellant Meena Devi, charge sheet was submitted against Nandlal Das as well as Sanjay Das against whom cognizance was taken and accordingly, were put on trial under Sessions Trial No.43 of 2007 wherein both of them were convicted and sentenced on the same day by the same court against which Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1048 of 2011 is pending and on account thereof, both the appeals have been heard together though are being decided by two separate judgments as both the sessions trial though dispose of on

¶12

same day but by two distinct judgments.

¶13

4. Because of the fact that there happens to be inherent lapses at the part of the trial court during conduction of trial, therefore the merit of the case is not being discussed.

¶14

5. During course of hearing as well as after having perusal of the lower court record, it is evident that learned trial court had recorded deposition of all the DWs in carbon process. Not only this, even the cross-

¶15

¶16

examination of DW-4, DW-5 is under carbon process. The conduct of the trial court appears to be strange one in consistent with the procedure so laid down under Criminal Procedure Code for recording evidence of a witness. By such action, the learned lower court, has bypassed the mandatory requirement, i.e. administering oath before recording of evidence with regard to present case apart from the fact that there happens to be utter violation of Section 276 of the Cr.P.C. what worries is the action of the trial court which clearly suggests that either the trial judge had himself innovated the illegal method in recording evidence or the trial judge had no knowledge with regard to procedural law. On account thereof, the finding so arrived at by the learned lower court happens to be illegal, because of the fact that on account of such lapses the evidence of DWs could not be taken into consideration. That means to say, by the illegal act of trial judge right of the appellant is found prejudiced. Consequent thereupon, the judgment impugned of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned lower court to proceed afresh from the stage of defence with a warning

¶17

¶18

that trial should be conducted and concluded adhering mandate of procedural law, positively. Appellant is on bail as such her bail bond is cancelled with a direction to surrender before the learned lower court with a prayer for bail within four weeks from the date of receipt / production of order which the learned lower court will favourably consider otherwise her appearance will be procured in accordance with law. Let a copy of judgment be made available to Bihar Judicial Academy for providing special training to the P.O. concerned at least relating to procedural law.

¶19

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)

¶20

PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 6th day of Feb., 2014 PRAKASH NARAYAN

¶21

__ || U || T

Meena Devi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Devi v. the State of Bihar

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

Pappu Kumar Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar

Raghbendra Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur and Ors.

Md. Mokhtar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Nandlal Das and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar

Rajendra Sonar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.