Raju Rana vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Geasen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned

A.P.P. appearing for the State.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.01.2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Tract

Court, Koderma in Session Trial No.41 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 304B and

498A IPC and sentenced under Section 304B IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

The appellant-Raju Rana (husband of the deceased-Jatahi Devi @ Lochna Devi) has been charged under Sections 498-A & 304(B)/34 I.P.C.

along with father and mother of the appellant namely Babulal Rana and Baso Devi. Father and mother of the appellant have been acquitted and Raju

Rana (the appellant) has been convicted vide judgment dated for the offence under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 7 years.

The FIR has been lodged by the informant namely Punit Rana (father of the deceased) on 09.06.2001 which has been registered as Markacho P.S.

Case No.41 of 2001 under Sections 498A & 304B/34 I.P.C and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the FIR, the informant has been informed by a boy of Dongodih (matrimonial house of the deceased) that her daughter namely Jatahi Devi

@ Lochna Devi has been killed by her husband and his family members. On receiving such information, the informant immediately rushed to

matrimonial house of her daughter and found dead body of her daughter on a cot in the Varandah. There were some injuries on the body and also a

rope was lying beside the cot. Suspicion has been shown by the informant that her daughter has been killed by the appellant and named four family

members along with other unnamed persons. The reason for killing of the deceased was non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry as a demand of

Rs.25,000/-(twenty five thousand rupees) and a Rajdoot Motorcycle has been made by the matrimonial family members of the deceased. On the basis

of the fardbeyan, the case has been registered. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against Raju Rana (husband of the

deceased), Babulal Rana (father-in-law of the deceased) and Baso Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased). After completion of investigation, charge

has been framed under Sections 498A & 304B/34 I.P.C against Raju Rana and his parents. On completion of the trial, father and mother of the

appellant have been acquitted except the present appellant who has been found guilty under Sections 498A & 304B I.P.C and further sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years against which the present appeal has been preferred.

The issue which has been raised before this Court is, “whether prosecution has been able to produce sufficient evidence, especially demand of

dowry and cruelty for satisfying the necessary ingredients for conviction under Sections 498A & 304B I.P.C?â€​

The prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses.

P.W.1-Kedar Thakur who is the villager and independent witness, has been declared hostile.

P.W.2-Barhan Rana and P.W.6-Bainy Thakur, are the neighbours of the deceased but they have been declared hostile. No evidence has come

through these witnesses.

P.W.3-Tilak Dhari Yadav and P.W.4-Seeta Ram Thakur are also neighbour of the deceased and they have testified being witnesses of the dead

body. They have negated the ill-treatment or demand of dowry rather they have testified that the deceased was being given proper treatment and was

happy in her matrimonial house.

P.W.5-Bindeshwari Das is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has testified that he had seen the place of occurrence and also seen the dead

body of the deceased lying on the cot in the Varandah. There was injury on the person of the deceased. Witnesses were examined by him and they

have supported the prosecution story as disclosed in the F.I.R.

P.W.7-Dr. Binay Kumar had conducted the post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased and has found ante-mortem injury and opined the cause

of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. From the medical evidence, it is evident that it is a case of homicide not suicide.

P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the formal witnesses, who have testified regarding the fardbeyan and the Zimmanama.

Defense has also produced one witness, namely, Dular Chand Rana as D.W.1, who is neighbour of the deceased. This witness has deposed that

there was no conflict or ill-treatment to the deceased rather she was living a happy married life.

In this case, the informant-Punit Rana (father of the deceased) has not been examined. In fact no family members has been examined. Thus, there

is no evidence regarding the demand of dowry. So far as ill-treatment or cruelty to the deceased is concerned there is no evidence on record.

One of the necessary ingredients of section 304B of the IPC is cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives in connection with demand of

dowry. Admittedly in the present case, no evidence has been brought on record regarding demand of dowry or cruelty and as such, prosecution has

failed to establish the necessary ingredient for conviction under Section 304B of the IPC.

So far as Section 498A is concerned, it is subjecting the wife to cruelty. The cruelty to the deceased by the husband or any family members has

not been evidenced rather there is no evidence at all regarding the cruelty or ill treatment to the deceased.

In absence of such evidence, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 498A of the IPC.

From the discussion made above, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant by leading

evidence. In fact no evidence is available on record to justify the charge by fulfilling the ingredient of Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, especially,

the ingredient of cruelty or demand of dowry.

Considering the entire material available on record, this Court finds that there is no sufficient material available on record connecting the present

appellant with the charge under Sections 498A & 304B/34 I.P.C.

Consequently, the conviction of appellant is not sustainable, the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.01.2006 passed by Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Koderma in Session Trial No.41 of 2002, is, hereby, set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is, hereby, allowed.

Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.