AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellants have been convicted for the offence u/s 304B, 201 and 34 Indian Penal Code whereas the Appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years u/s 304B Indian Penal Code and three years simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 201 Indian Penal Code. The Appellant No. 3 Manoj Kumar and Appellant No. 4 Sanjay Kumar Gupta have been convicted for the same period but they would undergo rigorous imprisonment by a Judgment and order of conviction dated 28.9.2001/1.10.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Case No. 197 of 1995. The case of the Informant Tarani Tanti is that his daughter Sushma Devi @ Baby Devi was married with Awadh Kumar Gupta in the year 1991. While she was staying in her matrimonial home, the accused persons always demanded dowry and articles and tortured her for non-fulfilment of the same. On 12.10.1993, the accused persons allegedly poisoned the victim to death and did not give him any information about the same. He stated that one Binay Kumar Gupta who has not been examined, had given this information to him. He learnt from the Hospital records that his daughter had died in the Hospital. He suspected some foul play even in the hands of the Doctor and, therefore, submitted a written report, upon which, the case proceeded.
During Trial, the Prosecution examined eleven witnesses. The Defence also examined one witness on the point that no torture had ever been meted out to the deceased.
PW-1 Sashi Kant Pandit stated that on 12.10.1996 while he was in his house a lot of crying was going on in the house of the Informant and on enquiry, he learnt that his daughter had died. He then accompanied the Informant to the Hospital and found that in the Hospital records, the name of the daughter of the Informant was wrongly written. When enquiry was sought to be made from the Doctor he expressed his inability to give them any information. They then went to the village of the Appellants but the father-in-law threatened them. He stated that four days later, the dead body was recovered. The reason for the occurrence was that 25,000/- rupees and a Television were being demanded by the in-laws but it was not given and, hence, she was killed. He did not give any particulars as to when the deceased informed him that the in-laws were demanding dowry. He admitted in his cross-examination that the. register in the Hospital contained the particulars of the deceased.
PW-2 Anil Kumar was in Delhi on the date of occurrence and he received information that his cousin sister had been murdered by her in-laws. He then reached her village where he was informed that the deceased had suffered some pain in the stomach on account of which she was taken to the Hospital but she died. He also went to the Hospital to check up the records. The Doctors of the Hospital could not give them any cogent reply with regard to the death of the deceased.
PW-3 Pradeep Kumar is also a cousin brother of the deceased. He stated that on the date of occurrence, he reached the village of the deceased on hearing about her death and found the Appellants crying over her death. They stated that suddenly she had pain in her chest on account of which she had been taken to the Hospital, but she died.
PW-4 Binay Kumar Pankaj stated that he was informed that his sister had died. On this information, they went to the house of the Appellants but they did not give any reply but were told that she had been taken to the Hospital. When they went to check up the records of the Hospital, they were not satisfied and, hence, the present case was instituted.
PW-5 Hemlata Devi is the mother of the deceased who stated that her daughter had been married in the year 1991 who used to say to her/that her in-laws used to demand dowry. However, when exactly the demands were made, is not stated.
PW-6 Anand Nath Sinha stated that the Informant came to him and told him that his sister had died, whereafter, he went accompanying him to the Hospital and looked into the register and, then went with him for filing present First Information Report. He does not state anything about particulars of demand of dowry.
PW-7 Tarani Tanti is the Informant who gave the same version he had given in the First Information Report.
PW-8 Raj Kumar Prasad, the son of the Informant, also stated that the in-laws had killed his sister for ends of dowry. However, when exactly the demands were made, has not been stated. PW-9 Gorelal Yadav is a formal witness who proved the inquest report.
PW-10, Dr. H.I. Ansari stated that he had examined Sushma Devi @ Baby Devi on 21.10.1993 but no clear opinion could be given with regard to the death of the deceased.
PW-11 Baleshwar Choubey is the Investigating Officer who stated that he had submitted charge sheet in the present case.
On going through the evidence of the Prosecution, I find that the admitted position is that the deceased died three years after the marriage. None of the witnesses have stated as to when exactly the demands were made by the in-laws and whether it would come within the definition of "soon before" the death, is not fulfilled. Moreover, some of the witnesses have also stated that on the date of occurrence, they had found the Appellants also in a mourning state and that they were upset of the death of the deceased. Also it is the admission of the Prosecution that the deceased had been removed to the Hospital before her death. If at all the intent was to commit her murder, certainly, no steps should be taken to save her life.
Hence, giving benefit of doubt to the Appellants, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentenced dated 28.9.2001/1.10.2001 passed against the Appellants in connection with Sessions Trial No. 197 of 1995 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, is, hereby, set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.