Meena Devi and Others vs Khakhanu Roy

Anjana Prakash, J.—The appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B/34 and 201, IPC and sentenced to R1 for ten years and one year respectively by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 214 of 1993 by a judgment dated 30.6.1997.

The case of the prosecution according to the informant, PW 8 is that his daughter had been married with Khakhanu Roy about two years ago but she was consistently harassed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of a motorcycle. About 2-3 months back appellants Ram Bilash Roy and Khakhanu Roy had attempted to put her on fire by pouring kerosene oil on account of which she burnt and thereafter she was removed to Mahua Hospital where in front of Doctor a panchnama was prepared in which the appellant had also signed stating therein that he would look after the deceased. It was learnt by the informant that his daughter had been burnt to death and cremated in the orchard by the accused persons.

The defence of the appellant was that the deceased had died when her saree caught fire while preparing meal in the morning and the Doctor was called after the occurrence who declared her dead then she was cremated in full public view in presence of the co-villagers.

During trial the prosecution in all examined nineteen witnesses out of whom PW4, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14 and PW16 had been declared hostile whereas PW6, PW9, PW10, PW15 and PW17 are tendered witnesses whereas PW19 is a formal witness who has proved the certificate given by Doctor, Gopal Prasad Yadav about the undertaking of the accused persons that they would look after the deceased.

Out of the material witnesses PW2, Jhimi Lal Rai and PW3. Chandrika Rai who are residents of mother village have deposed that they were eyewitnesses and that on the date of occurrence they had entered the house of the appellants when they heard some cries from inside saw appellant in the house assaulting the deceased and thereafter she was set on fire. They have stated that they did not inform anyone about the occurrence and just went away. PW 1. Rangilal Rai is the person who is said to have initiated the marriage negotiation between the deceased and the appellant Khakhanu Roy that there was always a demand for motorcycle from the boy side on account of which she was assaulted. He also stated that there was a pancayati for this reason and appellant. Ram Bilash Roy undertook to look after the girl in the said Panchayati. Pancayati is said to have taken place in the Mahua Hospital in the presence of Doctor Gopal Prasad Roy and he proved the panchnama Exhibit 5.

On perusal of the panchanama Ex. 5, I find that even though there are signatures of various persons there is no mention of the name of Rangilal Rai in the same. No doubt in the Doctor''s certificate Ex. 5/1 the name of Rangilal Rai has been mentioned that the panchayati took place in his presence but there is no signature even on the said document. It also does not stand to reason as to why Rangilal Rai would not have signed on the panchnama if the Doctor had given a certificate on the same date that a panchayati was held in his presence even while several others, none of whom have been examined signed on the same.

PW8 is the informant and father of the girl who stated that on the date of occurrence he learnt that his daughter has been murdered by poisoning her and when he went there the house was locked and none of the inmates were present. He also stated that there was demand of Rajdoot Motorcycle for which his daughter had been assaulted on various occasions and she had also written letters to him in this regard which are Exhibits 6 and 6/1. On specific query during cross-examination as to whether the informant had any other document written in the hand of deceased from which a verification could be made that in fact the letter had been written by the deceased he denied the same. This is surprising since ordinarily if a person is a literate and having gone to school there would be some copies or some written material. Furthermore, I find that in the letter the writer addresses itself as a male and not female which raises a reasonable suspicion as to whether the letters were in fact written by the deceased or somebody else and produced soon after the death with a view to further buttress the prosecution case. This more so because the letters are otherwise in chaste Hindi and it would naturally be expected of the writer to correctly address the gender. For this reason, I am not inclined to rely on the said letter.

PW 18 the Investigation Officer is a witness who is relevant in this case and he is said to have found a bottle containin kerosene oil and some broken bangles at the place of occurence as also some remnants in the room. PW19 is a Clerk who proved the certificate granted by Doctor, Goal Prasad that panchayati took place between teh parties with regard to keeping the deceased with due care. However, in absence of theDoctor who alone could have testified about the contents of the document the same has no meaning in law and , therefore, it has necessarily to be discarded.

Having considered that apart from teh vague allegations of the informant with regard to demands of dowry adn no proof about the exact cause of death of the deceased, I am not inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellants.

In the result, the appeals are allowed and teh judgment dated 30.6.1997 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishad at Hajipur in S. Tr. No. 214 of 1993 is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.