CHHOTI SAO @ PUNIT SAO vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st January, 2003 passed by Additional District &Â

Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.313 of 2000, holding all the appellants guilty under Sections 498A & 304B read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences will run together.Â

The prosecution case, in short, is that informant Sanichar Sao gave written report that marriage of his daughter Mina Devi was solemnized with

Chhoti Sao in the year 1999 and Rs.10,000/- cash was settled to be given as dowry and at the time of marriage only Rs.5000/- was given. After some

time, the husband of the girl demanded rest amount of Rs.5000/- but since he was not having sufficient fund, gave only Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, the

husband Chhoti Sao alias Punit Sao, father-in-law Jehal Sao and mother-in-law Baso Devi started demanding rest of the amount. Whenever informant

went to meet his daughter then the girl used to say that the balance amount of dowry be given to in-laws otherwise mother-in-law, father-in-law and

husband may commit his murder as they are threatening her due to this reason and also assaulting her. A Panchayti was arranged at village

Rangamati and before the Panches the son-in-law, Samdhi and Samdhan said in express words and demanded rest of Rs.4000/- balance dowry

amount. Since informant was not having much of amount, he returned to his home. On 01.07.2000, he got information from Arjun Sao of Rangamati

about death of his daughter Mina. He went to village Rangamati and saw that his daughter is lying dead. He claimed that his son-in-law Chhoti Sao

alias Punit Sao, Samdhi Jehal Sao and Samdhan Baso Devi have committed murder of his daughter by making conspiracy.Â

Accordingly, Nimiaghat P.S. Case No.53 of 2000 under Section 498A, 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and formal F.I.R. was

drawn being G.R. No.1017 of 2000. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the appellants and after taking cognizance and

commitment of case to the court of Sessions and after framing of charge under the aforesaid Sections, the prosecution altogether examined twelve

witnesses whereas defence has examined four witnesses on their behalf.Â

P.W.1 Yugal Kishore Yadav stated that daughter of Sanichar Sao was daughter-in-law of Jehal Sao and marriage was solemnized with Chhoti Sao

3/4 years ago. He was not knowing about the dowry agreed upon. He was not aware how the wife of Chhoti Sao died. He was declared hostile and

was cross-examined on behalf of prosecution.Â

In the similar fashion, P.W.2 Bhikhan Sao, a teacher in the private school, deposed and was also declared hostile.

P.W.3 Bhuneshwar Sao working as Khalasi in Eastern Railway, also became hostile and not supported the prosecution case.Â

P.W.4 Mani Sao, a cultivator and P.W.5 Lakhan Sao both of Rangamati became hostile and not supported the prosecution case.

P.W.6 Ramesh Sao alias Rameshwar Prasad, Assistant Teacher in Kanya Middle School, Isri Bazar stated that daughter of Sanichar Sao namely

Mina Devi was married with Chhoti Sao alias Punit Sao in Rangamati in the year 1999. At the time of marriage, what was settled as dowry, was not

known to him but they came to know during

Panchayti that it was settled for Rs.10,000/- and at the time of marriage Rs.6000/- was given. For the rest of amount, the girl was being pressurized to

bring that amount from her parents. The father of the girl came and approached him for arranging a Panchayti as the husband and in-laws were

torturing his daughter. The Panchayti was called at the house of Chhoti Sao and he participated as one of Panch. Roop Lal Sao, Yugal Mahto and

Bhuneshwar Sao were also present in Panchayti. During Panchayti, the Panches also accepted the demand of rest balance amount of Rs.4000/-. The

father of the girl accepted it and promised to pay after some days. But after some days, he heard that the girl took poisonous tablet and on the way

while she was being taken to the hospital died. The father of the girl said that his daughter was being tortured. He recognized all the three accused

present in court. During cross-examination, he replied that the father of the girl has informed during the Panchayti about the torture. At that time, ten

persons were present including Roop Lal Sao, Yugal Mahto, Bhuneshwar Sao and Mani Sao. Although he could not remember the date of Panchayti

but probable it was in the month of June-July, 2000. He heard about the torture for the first time. He further replied that the death due to taking poison

was heard and on that very basis he has deposed. He was not aware who were taking her to the hospital. The girl died on 30th July, 2000. He

admitted that Chhoti Sao is a handicapped person and he is not aware what work Chhoti Sao doing although father of Chhoti Sao is working as

labourer. He has no personal connection with his family. He also replied that Roop Lal Sao is his maternal uncle and the deceased girl was daughter

of his wife’s brother. Lastly, he stated that the Police has not recorded his statement and for the first time he is deposing before the court. He

denied the suggestion given to him.

P.W.7 Roop Lal Sao deposed in support of the prosecution case regarding solemnization of marriage of Mina Devi with Chhoti Sao in the year 1999 in

the month of June-July. The dowry was settled for Rs.10, 000/- and at the time of marriage Rs..6000/- was given and Rs.4000/- remained balance

due. The deceased was being tortured by Chhoti Sao and their parents for remaining amount of dowry. The father of the girl convened a Panchayti at

the house of Chhoti Sao in which he was also present. In the Panchayti the decision was taken for giving Rs.4000/- to them. The father of the

deceased returned to his house for bringing rest amount and told that after arranging the amount he will come back. Some delay had occurred in giving

rest of the amount then assault was committed upon the girl. The girl took poisonous tablet which was available for keeping in the rice. After she took

the poison, she was taken to Dumri hospital. He heard that while she was taken to Dhanbad, she died on the way. She had eaten poisonous tablet

because of abuse and torture inflicted upon her. He recognized all the three accused persons in the court. During crossexamination, he replied that he

was posted at Madhya Vidyalaya, Gopaldih Circle, Bagodar which was at the distance of 10 Km from Rangamati. On the day the girl died, he was in

his school. When he returned home in the evening then he could know from his wife about the death of the girl. He also replied that the deceased

remained in her Sasural for about one year and he was in visiting term and used to talk with Mina. He also replied that the Panchayti was convened in

the month of June, 2000 but no paper was prepared in the Panchayti. The residents of Rangamati participated in that Panchayti. He had got invitation

of the Panchayti on the same day and he had occasion to converse with Mina even after Panchayti. He also replied that he had not settled marriage

of Mina. He admitted that he stated before the Police that father of the girl had accepted that he will give the amount after some days. He also

admitted that the Panches had decided that the balance amount should be given.Â

P.W.8 Dineshwar Prasad is maternal uncle of the deceased Mina Devi. He stated that Mina Devi was married with Chhoti Sao who is also known as

Punit Sao. During marriage, Rs.10,000/- was finalized as dowry in which Rs.6000/- was given and rest Rs.4000/- remained dues. There was some

quarrel and assaults were being made for the balance of rest Rs.4000/-. The father of deceased called a Panchayti at Rangamati in which he was

present. This Panchayti was conducted 20/25 days ago before the death of the girl. The Panches decided that the father of the girl should give the

amount then father of the girl took one month’s time for arranging the amount. The delay occurred in giving the rest of the amount then husband,

father-in-law of the girl started assaulting and quarreling as well as threatening her for life. Then the girl had eaten poisonous tablet which was being

used in the rice. After that she was taken to Dumri hospital and from there she was referred to Dhanbad hospital but the girl died on the way. He

recognized all the accused persons in court. He was cross-examined and replied that he was not frequently visiting the house of the girl. While he was

going to duty then he heard that Mina took poison. She was taken to Referral Hospital, Dumri by Chhoti, Jehal and her motherin-law. Thereafter, she

was referred to Dhanbad. He was also present and accompanied them with some other persons. Mina died on the way while they reached near

railway crossing. He further replied that news of taking poison was communicated by Jehal Sao and others to Sanichar Sao by sending Arjun Sao.

Arjun brought Sanichar and his wife to Rangamati. He met with Sanichar and his wife who also saw the dead body. He also replied that the hospital

expenses were borne by accused persons. He stated that Sanichar Sao is his brother-in-law. He also replied that she took poisonous tablet. Jehal

Sao informed Arjun Sao who called Sanichar and his wife to Rangamati. He stated that Chhoti is lame person and he was living in Bombay for the last

three years. Before the death of Mina, Chhoti was living in the village and never went to Bombay. He had stated before the Police about the torture

committed by the accused persons due to nonfulfillment of balance amount of Rs.4000/-. He also stated that Jehal and his wife are old aged persons

whereas Chhoti is a handicapped person.Â

P.W.9 Sarswati Devi stated that deceased Mina Devi was her grand-daughter (Natni) whose marriage was solemnized with the son of Jehal of

Rangamati. Rupees Ten thousand was settled as dowry in which Rs.6000/- was paid but Rs. 4000/- remained to be paid for which the husband and in-

laws were torturing and threatening her. She was being pressurized to bring the balance amount of dowry. The father of the girl convened Panchayti

at Rangamati at the door of the boy where it was decided that after arranging the amount, the balance amount would be paid. Since the amount could

not be arranged even after 20-25 days of Panchayti then the girl had taken poisonous tablet and died. She recognized all the three accused persons.

During crossexamination, she stated that the marriage was settled at Japula Tand and she was also present at the time of settlement of marriage.

After 15/20 days of settlement, the marriage was solemnized at Rangamati. After marriage Mina started living in her matrimonial home. This witness

used to visit residence of accused persons but after 3/4 month she stopped going there but their family members used to visit there. She further stated

that she heard about the death of Mina and that she had taken poison. She stated that Mina was beautiful girl and Chhoti had only one leg but Mina

was not depressed due to this physical disability. She replied that she was not present during Panchayti as only male members had participated in the

Panchayti but no paper was prepared in it although Panhayti had continued for 1 ½ -2 hours.Â

P.W. 10- Sanichar Sao is father of deceased Mina Devi. He stated that marriage of Mina Devi was solemnized in the year 1999 with Punit Sao alias

Chhoti Sao with Hindu customs. Rupees Ten thousand was settled as dowry and at the time of marriage Rupees Five thousand was given. After

marriage they started demanding the rest of the amount. Since he was not having sufficient fund so he paid only Rs.1000/- but even then they

continued to demand rest of the amount. When he used to visit the place, the girl used to say about further payment of Rs.4000/- to the husband and

her in-laws as they might commit her murder. She was regularly being assaulted then he convened a Panchayti at Rangamati. The Panches were

Yugal Yadav, Bhuneshwar etc. The Panches said for the payment of rest of the amount. He was not having amount so he took time for arranging the

amount. While he was arranging the amount, on 01.07.2000 he heard from Arjun Sao of Rangamati that his daughter died taking poisonous tablet.

After getting the news, he went to Rangamati and found the girl dead in the Aangan. She was being tortured and assaulted due to nonfulfillment of

dowry amount. He further stated that he informed the Police and gave written report and recognized his signature over it, which has been marked as

Ext.1. The Police came and inspected the place and sent the body for post-mortem. After post-mortem, the body was cremated. He recognized

accused Chhoti Sao and Baso Devi and claimed to identify Jehal Sao then his identification was waived. During cross-examination, this witness

admitted that at the time of settlement of marriage, Mani Sao, Roop Lal Sao, Dineshwar Sao and Janki Sao were present. The settlement was made in

good atmosphere. After one week of settlement, the marriage was solemnized. He could not state exact date of marriage. He had seen Chhoti Sao

before marriage. At that time, the age of the girl was 13 years and consent of girl was also taken. After marriage the girl started living in her

matrimonial house. He could not remember the date and month but she started living there since 1999. She remained there for about one year and had

visited to his residence (Maika) once. He has taken Bidai of his daughter and she remained in the house for about 15/20 days and thereafter she again

went to her Sasural. The son-in-law had come at the time of Bidai. After that Bidai, the girl remained alive for about three months only. After she

went to Sasural, the torture relating to the demand of dowry continued for which the Panchayti was convened. The Panchayti was held 20/25 days

before the death. Twelve persons had participated in the Panchayti and son-in-law and family members were informed before the Panchayti. No

paper was prepared at the Panchayat nor was any evidence recorded by the Panches. No written decision of the Panches was prepared. He got

news of death of his daughter from Arjun Sao of Rangamati then he went there and heard about eating of poisonous tablet. Murhu Police Station is at

the distance of 3 Km. He has stated that Chhoti Sao has only one leg and he is running a shop. His parents sell vegetables and working as labourer.

Her daughter had never complained that she has been married with lame person. He denied the suggestion that since the boy was handicapped and

the girl was healthy and beautiful, so she was in a depressed condition and committed suicide.Â

P.W. 11 Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Mina Devi alias Minwa Devi wife of Chhoti Sao @ Punit Sao and

found the following:-

(i) Both eyes closed. Mouth partially opened. Hair black.

(ii) Rigor mortis present in all limbs. Tongue inside the mouth. Teeth intact. No external injury either anti mortem or post mortem in nature was found.

Foecal matter around the anal region present.Â

On dissection subcutaneous tissue in neck NAD, hyoid bone intact. Larynx and trachea NAD, lungs congested both sides. Heart contained blood both

side. liver, spleen, kidney congested. Bladder empty. Uterus small and non-gravid. Stomach contained thick liquid about 200 ml with fungal smell.

Mucosal membrane congested. Skull NAD. Brain congested.Â

 In his opinion, cause of death was due to suspected poisoning. However, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. He proved his signature and

handwriting which was marked as Ext.2. During crossexamination, he has stated that he cannot say whether viscera was sent for chemical

examination.

P.W.12 Shyam Deo Singh is Investigating Officer of this case. He proved written report of Sanichar Sao (Ext.1), endorsement of the then Officer-in-

charge Police Station as Ext.1/1. He also proved formal F.I.R. in the handwriting of Md. Alam and the signature of N.P. Sinha. This formal F.I.R.

was marked as Ext.3. During investigation, he visited the place of occurrence and had prepared Inquest Report which was marked as Ext.4. He sent

the body to Giridih hospital for post-mortem. He also inspected the house of Jehal Sao and description of the house and place of occurrence were

given by him. He had recorded the statement and re-statement of informant and other witnesses. After completion of investigation, he submitted

charge-sheet. He stated that witness Bhuneshwar Sao had stated before him that deceased was being tortured and threatened to her life. He had also

stated that due to delay in giving the rest of amount, the girl took the poisonous tablet and died while she was being taken to hospital. In the similar

fashion, Mani Sao has also stated that due to nonfulfillment of Rs.4000/- she was being tortured and assaulted for which a Panchayti was also

convened by his father in which he was also present. He had arrested the accused persons and recognized Chhoti Sao. He was crossexamined at

length and properly replied the questions put before him.

 5. After recording the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defence examined three

witnesses.

D.W.1 Nago Sao stated that he knows co-villager Jehal Sao as he is his neighbor. His son Chhoti Sao was married ten years before and his wife was

living in good condition. There was no demand from the side of accused persons and no torture was being made by her wife. The wife of Chhoti Sao,

Mina Devi had taken poisonous tablet but while she was being taken to Dhanbd for treatment, she died. The expenses of treatment were made by

Jehal Sao. The cause of taking poison was that her husband was handicapped person having only one leg for which she was in a depressed condition.

He further stated that Panchayti was never held between them. During cross-examination, he replied that he is giving statement on his own and

nobody had tutored him. He further replied that Jehal Sao is not his relative and no Panchayti was held in the village. He denied the suggestion that he

is concealing the actual fact.Â

D.W.2 Santosh Sao deposed in the similar manner that the marriage of Chhoti Sao and Mina Devi was solemnized 8/10 years before her death. She

died due to poisonous tablet as she was not satisfied with the marriage because Chhoti Sao was handicapped person. No torture was ever committed

by the accused persons. After taking poisonous tablet she was taken to Dumri hospital and later she was referred to Dhanbad but she died near a

railway crossing then her parents were informed and called. He was cross-examined and replied in the manner that there was no torture due to

demand of dowry.

D.W.3 Chhoti Sao is one of the accused and husband of accused.

He stated that he is not able to walk as he is using Baisakhi. Deceased Mina Devi was his wife. She died in the year 2000. Since he was lame person,

she was not satisfied and continued to remain depressed. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1993 and all the three brothers are living

separately. Her mother sells vegetables whereas his father is working as labourer. A false case has been lodged by father-in-law. We never

demanded any dowry nor was any torture committed upon her. She had herself committed suicide. No Panchayti was ever made. The treatment was

done at Dumri hospital and thereafter Doctor referred her to Dhnabad while she was being taken to Dhanbad, she died on the way. After her death,

father-in-law and mother-in-law were informed through Arjun Sao who had called them. Disability certificate has also been issued to him. During

cross-examination, he stated that he was handicapped before the marriage. He himself brings his goods for his shop. Dumri bazar is at a distance of 5

Km. No Panchayti was held and she was not satisfied, so she was living in depressed condition. In reply to the court question, he stated that he was

handicapped at the time of marriage but after seeing each other, the marriage was settled. No dowry was demanded at the time of marriage.

D.W.4 Tikait Prasad Sah is Advocate Clerk who has proved disability certificate of Chhoti Sao which was issued by Medical Board, Giridih and has

proved the signature of the doctor and Chhoti Sao which has been marked as Ext. A. During cross-examination, he has admitted that this disability

certificate was not prepared before him nor he is aware of the full name of the Doctor.Â

Counsel for the appellants submitted that conviction is bad in law in as much as that the trial court has not considered that date of marriage was not

clearly established as the prosecution witnesses have stated that it was held in the year 2000 whereas the defence witnesses have stated that

marriage was solemnized ten years before death. He also submitted that the cause of death is not properly proved because there is no such report of

viscera which could establish that the death was due to poisoning. He also submitted that deceased might have committed suicide as she was a good

looking lady whereas the husband was lame person. The factum of suicide has also not been established. He also submitted that except the oral

evidence of holding a Panchayti, there is no such corroborative evidence to prove the holing of Panchayti and direction to pay the rest of the promised

amount.

Except the Panchayti, no other evidence about the demand of dowry and torture relating to it was brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore,

ingredient of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is not established in this case. He also submitted that bonafide of the appellants could be gathered

that after taking the poisonous tablet by the deceased, they immediately rushed to Dumri hospital and when the Doctor referred her to Dhanbad

hospital, she was being taken to Dhanbad hospital but she died on the way then the parents of Mina Devi were informed through Arjun Sao, her co-

villager. These are the natural conduct by the appellants. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have committed the murder of Mina Devi.

Learned Additional P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to torture due to demand of

dowry and the harassment and torture was in connection with it. The death occurred within seven years of marriage and just after 20/25 days after

Panchayti. There is link between demand and death which was unnatural death. The Doctor has found suspected poison and viscera was preserved.

P.Ws. 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 have supported the case and they have also deposed on the point of marriage which was solemnized in the year 1999.

Considering the above submission of the parties and looking to the evidences adduced on behalf of both sides, it appears from their scrutiny of those

evidences that the exact date of marriage is not brought on record as the prosecution witnesses have stated that it was held in the year 1999 whereas

defence witnesses have stated that it was solemnized 8/10 years ago. The demand of dowry and torture in connection thereto have also not been

established as the assertion was regarding holding of Panchayti due to non-fulfillment of balance due amount but no paper of holding Panchayti or

any direction connection thereto were brought on record by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to brought on record the instances of torture

meted out to the deceased. The post-mortem report pointed towards the suspicion that the death was due to poisoning for which viscera was

preserved for chemical analysis. The prosecution has failed in bringing on record the chemical examination report of viscera. The conduct of the

appellants was that when the deceased took poisonous tablet then she was immediately taken to Dumri hospital from where she was referred to

Dhanbad hospital. The parents of deceased Mina Devi was informed through Arjun Sao. P.W.8 Dineshwar Prasad., maternal uncle of the deceased

Mina Devi has stated that hospital expenses were borne by the accused persons and this witness had accompanied Mina Devi and accused persons

while the deceased was taken to Dumri Referral Hospital and the fact relating to medical expenses was also corroborated with the evidence of

D.W.1 Nago Sao who has also stated that the expenses of treatment were made by Jehal Sao. If it would have been a planned murder then the news

about the death of daughter might not have been communicated by the appellants to the parents of the deceased. Therefore in these circumstances,

the defence has able to create doubt and the prosecution has not able to prove all the ingredients of Section 304-B. The prosecution have not brought

on record the exact date of marriage so that it could infer that the occurrence took place within seven years of marriage and has also failed in bringing

that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. In these backgrounds and

considering the totality of the evidences adduced on behalf of both sides, the appellants deserve at least to the benefit of doubt.Â

In the result, this Appeal is allowed.Â

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st January, 2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court,

Giridih in Sessions Trial No.313 of 2000 is set aside.Â

All the appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.Â

Let the Lower Court Record be sent to the court concerned.Â