Allowed

Newaji Rai v. State of Bihar

Patna HC2 May 2014CR. APP (SJ)/469/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeals regarding a Section 304B IPC charge for dowry-related death, the High Court acquitted a father and sons. The court held the prosecution failed to prove cruelty or dowry demand, noting the primary witness relied on hearsay and lacked cross-examination of the doctor who found no injuries.

What did the court decide?

Appellants acquitted of charges held guilty of; set aside judgment of conviction and sentence; discharged from bonds.

Newaji Rai Vs State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.455 of 2002

¶3

=========================================================== 1. Nagdeo Rai. 2. Balindra Rai, Both sons of Late Saryug Rai. Resident of Village Bhadwas, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali.

¶4

The State of Bihar

¶5

.... .... Appellants Versus .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 469 of 2002

¶6

=========================================================== Newaji Rai, Son of Late Saryug Rai, Resident of Village Bhadwas, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali.

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

.... .... Appellant Versus .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 498 of 2002

¶9

=========================================================== Raghunath Rai, Son of Late Saryug Rai, Resident of Village Bhadwas, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali.

¶10

.... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 455 of 2002) For the Appellants : Shri Gopal Shankar, Advocate Shri Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 469 of 2002) For the Appellant : Shri Gopal Shankar, Advocate For the State : Shri Z. Hoda, APP (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 498 of 2002) For the Appellant : Shri Gopal Shankar, Advocate For the State : Shri Vinod Bihari Singh, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-05-2014

¶11

The four appellants of the three connected appeals

¶12

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶13

2 / 14

¶14

were put on trial by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur after being charged with committing offences under Sections 304B/34, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1992. They were convicted by the learned trial judge by judgment dated 6.8.2002 of committing offences under Sections 304B/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years as also of two years on each of the two respective counts. The learned trial judge directed that the sentences imposed upon the appellants shall run concurrently. The appellants have challenged the findings of their guilt and the order of sentence passed upon each of them by preferring the present batch of appeals.

¶15

Appellant Raghunath Rai was married undisputedly to deceased Munni Devi who was the daughter of P.W. 2 Ramchandra Singh and was the sister of P.W. 4 Bhola Prasad the informant of the case. P.W. 1 Ramkali Devi was the mothe of the deceased Munni Devi and it is also not disputed that the deceased was residing on 26.7.1989 in the house of her husband. Another undisputed fact was that she died there on that day and undisputedly both P.Ws. 1 and 4, i.e., the mother and brother of the deceased/informant of the case were brought by

¶16

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶17

3 / 14

¶18

P.W. 2 to the cremation ground which has been described as Konhara Ghat. What further appears undisputed is that on arrival at the cremation ground P.W. 4 Bhola Prasad went to the police station and lodged the report upon which the police came and probably took charge of the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. There is no dispute further that the doctor who had held post-mortem examination – and who was not examined during the trial – did not find any external or internal injuries nor could he find out the real cause of the death of the deceased as a result of which he preserved the viscera of the dead body and sent it for chemical examination. The prosecution does not deny that it failed in producing the viscera report before the trial court and as such it has to be concluded on these circumstances and undisputed facts that it is till date not known as to how Munni Devi died.

¶19

In the background of the above undisputed and unchallenged facts, the allegation was that within four years of being married to the appellants Raghunath Rai, Munni Devi was deserted by him at her father’s house. She lived there and during that course she also took up a litigation under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the appropriate Court in Hajipur. While the litigation for maintenance was pending, it appears stated by the informant, the appellant Raghunath Rai filed an affidavit before the Court by way

¶20

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶21

4 / 14

¶22

of giving his undertaking that after taking the lady to his house he will accord due respect and kindness to her and would maintain her. The allegation was that appellant Raghunath Rai had also inducted another wife into his family by marrying Shivkumari Devi daughter of one Ram Narain Rai of Village Shekhopur , P.S.

¶23

– Desari, District – Vaishali. The allegation was that after her arrival in her matrimonial house in spite of the undertaking given by appellant Raghunath Rai, Munni Devi was not treated well and was harassed and tortured by him and was asked to bring a buffalo or a cow as dowry and these facts came to the knowledge of either the informant or his father P.W. 2 when they had visited the lady at village Bhadwas. The father, P.W. 2 Ramchandra Singh had gone to meet his daughter on 26.7.1989 and it was stated by the informant that he found Munni Devi lying dead inside the house of the appellants and froth was coming out of her mouth. The informant stated that Munni Devi was a hale and hearty person; she was not suffering from any ailments and it was definitely the acts of the appellants that they had murdered her by poisoning.

¶24

The informant further stated that the accused persons had brought the dead body to Konhara cremation ground for cremating the dead body and, as such, he came to lodge the report so that the dead body was taken into its custody by the

¶25

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶26

5 / 14

¶27

police and the case was investigated into after registering the same.

¶28

The doctor and the Investigating Officer were not examined as such the Court does not know as to how the investigation had proceeded in this case. However what transpires from the very perusal of the lower court records and the judgment impugned herein is that the four appellants were sent up for trial and the trial had culminated into the impugned judgment.

¶29

The defence of the appellants was that Munni Devi had died a natural death and there was no ill-treatment and torture meted out by the appellants to her and the case was founded on concocted and fabricated facts.

¶30

As many as eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring the charges home against the appellants, out of whom P.W. 3 Ramesh Kumar, P.W. 5 Naresh Chaudhary, P.W. 6 Shivshankar Bharti and P.W. 7 Ganesh Chaudhary were all formal witnesses who had brought on record or proved one record or the writing of one person or the other like, the doctor or the Investigating Officer. This was how the post-mortem report was marked Ext. 4 on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 7 Shivshankar Bharti while the doctor’s signature was marked Ext. 3 on the evidence of P.W. 5 Naresh Chaudhary. The fardbeyan which was recorded by P.W. 8 was also marked by examining the formal

¶31

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶32

6 / 14

¶33

witness P.W. 3. The First Information Report of the case was also brought on record only through the formal witness P.W. 7 Ganesh Chaudhary and was marked as Ext. 6.

¶34

During the course of the hearing of the appeal I was taken through the evidence of witnesses by Shri Gopal Shankar, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. It was contended that the star prosecution witness was P.W. 2 Ramchandra Singh and the very evidence of his could falsify the prosecution case that the deceased had been administered poison and had, thus, been killed. While P.Ws. 1 and 4, i.e., the mother and brother of the deceased were testifying that the deceased was being harassed and ill-treated because she was not bringing or her parents were not giving either a buffalo or a cow or both, P.W. 2 her father was completely silent on that part of the prosecution story making it utterly unsafe to act upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1and 4. Submission was that, thus, there was some serious doubt as regards the prosecution claim that the deceased had, just prior to her death, been subjected to cruelty or ill-treatment for or in connection with dowry or the demand for dowry. It was lastly, contended that the whole prosecution story appears not established by the prosecution through the evidence of three witnesses.

¶35

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶36

7 / 14

¶37

It was rightly contended that the prosecution story as regards the death of the deceased Munni Devi is rather the reproduction of the statement which was made by P.W.2 Ramchandra Singh to his family members and specially to P.W.4 Bhola Prasad. Bhola Prasad the informant of the case was examined as P.W.4 and he stated that his father had gone to the village of occurrence, i.e., village Bhadwas to meet his daughter Munni Devi and on arrival he found the lady lying dead with froth coming out of the corner of her mouth. P.W.4 further stated that when he came back to his house, he found his father sitting at his Darwaza and he was told the story by his father there and he along with his father came to Konhara Ghat and then went to the police station to lodge the report. P.W.4 does not state that his father had come to take with him his mother Ramkali Devi or the informant himself which was the statement of P.W.2 Ramchandra Singh who had stated very categorically in his evidence that the dead body was initially brought to Bidupur cremation ground but he persuaded the corpse bearers to take the dead body to Konhara Ghat as he was desirous to bring his wife and son to the cremation ground so that they could have a last look at the deceased. Accordingly, the corpse bearers granted him his wish and brought the dead body to Konhara Ghat from where he rushed to his village

¶38

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶39

8 / 14

¶40

to bring his wife and son who indeed appeared at the cremation ground. It was, as per P.W.2, from cremation ground Konhara that P.W.4 Bhola Prasad rushed to the police station to lodge the report when the police came and observed the formalities of taking the corpse into its custody.

¶41

During cross-examination P.W.2 Ramchandra Singh, as may appear from paragraph 4 of his evidence, was denying that he had ever stated that the four accused persons had poisoned the deceased to death and further he appears pointing out to the Court that he had not seen any froth coming out of the corners of the mouth of the deceased rather he learnt from the villagers that his daughter had been poisoned to death by the accused persons. These few last lines of the evidence in paragraph 4 of P.W.2 was giving a death blow to the very prosecution story that it was the accused persons who had poisoned the deceased to death. Moreover even assuming for the sake of argument that these couple of lines could have some evidentiary value when one could consider that neither the names of any villagers could be given by P.W.2 nor he could point out as to where and when he was told by them the facts narrated by him, no value could be attached to such hearsay. Thus, what appears from the evidence of P.W.2 who was the solitary person to have first had the glance of

¶42

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶43

9 / 14

¶44

the dead body in the house of the accused persons, that it may not be a case of poisoning.

¶45

The attention of this Court was drawn to paragraph 36 of the impugned judgment in which the learned trial Judge had observed as follows:

¶46

“36. The P.M. report of Munni Devi dated 27.7.89 shows that no antimortem injury was found on the body of deceased. Vicera have been reserved for chemical test. Dr. K.N. Sinha has given his report that no definite opinion can be given about the cause of death, hence vicera has been reserved for chemical analysis and report. The said preservation of the vicera shows clearly that doctor who did post-mortem was suspecting the case of poison, otherwise doctor would not have reserved the vicera at the time of postmortem of deceased Munni Devi. The report has not come to the court during the pendency of the case but the said report would not give any reverse opinion that Munni Devi has not died by administering poison.”

¶47

As may appear from the observations recorded by the learned trial Judge that in spite of recording that there was no viscera report and as such, there could not be any evidence that the viscera contained poison, the learned trial Judge was conjecturizing against nothing to justify that conjecture, that only because the doctor had preserved the viscera, so it could be a case of poisoning. I do not want to make further comments on the observations of the trial Court except to note that the observations indicated that the learned trial Judge was predetermined and had probably prejudged

¶48

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶49

10 / 14

¶50

the facts so as to holding the appellants guilty and punishing them. The doctor was not examined and I have noted that his signature on the post-mortem examination report was brought on record by examining a formal witness P.W.5 and the post-mortem examination report was made part of the evidence by examining another formal witness P.W.7. What were the contents of the documents and what was the opinion ultimately formed by the doctor who had held the post-mortem examination could have been brought on record or made part of evidence of the case only after the doctor had been examined by the prosecution and the accused had the opportunity of cross-examining him. It is always dangerous to withhold contents of the documents by withholding the maker of such records from the witness box and then utilizing the same, an ex-parte evidence, against an accused to hold him guilty of committing a particular offence. As appears from the very record made by learned trial Judge in paragraph 36 if there was no viscera report submitted after analyzing the viscera chemically, pointing out to the Court as to what was the cause of the death or would could be the content of the viscera, then the trial Court should not have held that the deceased Munni Devi has died of administering poison. It was a very dangerous finding based on no evidence and was probably recorded out of the imagination of

¶51

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶52

11 / 14

¶53

the judge which probably was putting the judge also into the witness box. What I mean to say by making these observations is that the prosecution had failed to establish its case that indeed Munni Devi had died of poisoning. I have already recorded earlier with reference to the evidence of P.W.2 Ramchandra Singh the father of the deceased that he had neither seen the froth coming out from the mouth of the deceased nor he had himself been a witness to administration of poison and his knowledge was based on hearsay which was not fit to be used for recording the conviction. In that view of the matter the ingredient of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code that the death of the deceased had occurred under circumstances not normal could be very difficult to be recorded by this Court.

¶54

Yet another ingredient of the offence of Section 304B is the ill-treatment and torture of the lady for or in connection of dowry and that too immediately prior to her death. The prosecution case as per the Fardbeyan and as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 was that the deceased was being ill-treated and tortured by the accused persons because a buffalo or a cow was not being given. Some circumstances of the prosecution case may be noticed. It is true that the marriage of the deceased had run into rough weather just after a month or so of her marriage to the

¶55

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶56

12 / 14

¶57

appellant Raghunath Rai and it was in such a situation the deceased had to take out a litigation before an appropriate Court but it is very much stated in the Fardbeyan itself and which appears from the evidence also, that since after being reinducted into the matrimonial house on the basis of undertaking given by Raghunath Rai before the Magistrate who was handling the maintenance case, she was having a very peaceful life in the matrimonial house. It was after about four years or so that the lady was allegedly being tortured and ill-treated merely for a buffalo or a cow. The very story appears absurd and improbable that when the lady had purchased peace from her husband and other family members and likewise, when the accused persons had also purchased peace at the cost of giving an undertaking before the appropriate Court, they shall put their freedom and life in peril by ill-treating and torturing the lady merely for a buffalo or a cow which was neither demanded at the time of marriage or just thereafter. This circumstance very strongly recommends to my conscience that the story was an invention of the prosecution witnesses probably to satisfy the judicial conscious requiring that the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code be established. This inference of mine gets support from the fact that if any buffalo or cow had ever been demanded by any of the

¶58

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶59

13 / 14

¶60

accused persons, the father of the deceased Ramchandra Singh should never have remained unaware of the demand. He was the head of the family. He was the father of the deceased and as appears from the tone and tenor of the evidence of prosecution, he was the master of everything as regards taking a decision by the family. As such, if any demand was made about anything from the deceased then the deceased ought to have informed her father or her mother P.W.2 Ramkali Devi and her father, as such, should definitely have come to know about the demand but the whole evidence of P.W.2 Ramchandra Singh is completely silent that any demand for a buffalo or a cow had ever been made by the accused persons. Thus, what I find is that this ingredient of ill-treating or torturing the lady for or in respect of dowry or its demand also appears not established by the prosecution making it utterly unsafe to uphold the conviction of the appellants which was recorded by the learned trial Judge.

¶61

On what I have recorded after considering the evidence of the prosecution, I am of the opinion on basis that the prosecution had miserably failed in substantiating the charges to the hilt rather the charges had not been proved which entitle the appellants to acquittal. Accordingly, the three appeals are allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and the order of

¶62

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.455 of 2002 dt.02-05-2014

¶63

14 / 14

¶64

sentence. The appellants of the three appeals are acquitted of the charges, they had been held guilty of. They are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.

¶65

(Dharnidhar Jha, J.)

¶66

Sanjay/A.F.R.

|| U
|__| T

Newaji Rai v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Newaji Rai v. 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

Anugrah Narayan Singh Vs State of Bihar

Dukhi Tiwari and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Awadhesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Bihar

Prakash Paswan and Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Raghunath Rai Vs State of Bihar

Nagdeo Rai and Anr. Vs State of Bihar