IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.63 of 2003
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- PATNA
1. Ajay Singh @ Pappu, son of Ram Anugrah Singh (since dead)
2. Ram Anugrah Singh, son of Late Ram Das Singh (since dead)
3. Phulbaso Devi @ Asha Devi, wife of Ram Anugrah Singh (since dead)
4. Punam Kumari, daughter of Ram Anugrah Singh, all residents of Bawak, P.S.
Punpun, District Patna
…. …. Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
…. …. Respondent
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : M/S Kunal Tiwary, Anupam Ran Aniket
Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.A.Ahmad, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 16-08-2018
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
15.1.2003 passed by Sri Nirmalesh Chandra Lala, the then Ad hoc
Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Patna in
Sessions Trial No. 71 of 1991/446 of 2001 by which the appellants
have been convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 306 IPC
and a fine of Rs.1000/- each with default clause.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, a report was called for
from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna regarding life status
of the appellants and from perusal of the report it appears that
appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Ajay Singh, Ram Anugrah Singh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
2/14
and Fulbaso Devi have died and as such the appeal against them
stands abated and now the appeal relates to only one appellant, who is
appellant No.4 Punam Kumari, who is alive.
3. Prosecution case as per the fardbeyan of Sobha Kumari,
sister of deceased, in short, is that her sister Prabha Kumari was
married to appellant Ajay Kumar Singh on 23.5.1986 and after
marriage she went to her ‘sasural’ and thereafter she came to her
father’s place and deceased had no child from the marriage. Further
prosecution case is that on the occasion of Deo jethan her father had
gone to village Bauk to meet her sister Prabha Devi and on returning
from there he was informed that the members of her sister’s sasural
had been harassing her and pressurizing her to get the informant
married to Arun Kumar, brother of appellant Ajay Kumar and as
Prabha Devi did not agree to the marriage, they had been abusing and
assaulting her. Further prosecution case is that in the month of Falgun
on account of torture of her in-laws she fled away from her sasural
and came to Akauna and informed them that the accused appellants
always abused and assaulted her and accused persons also did not
come to take her back and hence one day prior to the last Ramnavami,
on Sunday deceased Prabha Devi herself went to her sasural and
thereafter on 4.4.1990 one Upendra Singh of her village came to the
informant’s house and informed that Prabha Devi had burnt herself
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
3/14
and on getting such information, the informant along with her mother,
aunt, uncle and villager reached Potahi Railway Station, and by that
time 2 P.G. had arrived at that station, and her sister had already been
kept in brake van on a cot for taking her to Patna and one Umesh
Singh of village Potahi assisted the informant and others in boarding
the compartment adjacent to the brake van but she hurriedly got down
and boarded the brake van to see her sister and saw that her sister was
lying on a cot and was badly burnt and was asking for water. On
enquiry, deceased Prabha Devi told her that on Monday she was not
given food and during night of occurrence her husband, father-in-law,
mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad), all assaulted her and as the
torture was unbearable, she herself set her on fire. It is further alleged
that when the train reached at Patna Railway Station, her sister
complained of pain in abdomen and told that she would not survive
and blood was started oozing out from her mouth. Prabha Devi
(deceased) reached P.M.C.H., Patna at about 10.30 A.M. and doctor
examined her and informed that she had sustained 90% burn injury
and there was no chance of survival and after one hour of her arrival
she died.
4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Punpun P. S.Case No.
36 of 1990 was registered. Post investigation charge sheet has been
submitted, cognizance of the offence has been taken and after
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
4/14
commitment the case ultimately traveled to the file of Sri Nirmalesh
Chandra Lala, the then Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer,
Additional Court No.2, Patna for trial and disposal.
5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined
the following witnesses : PW 1 Dharmendra Kumar, villager, PW 2
Bijendra Singh, father of deceased, PW 3 Suresh Singh, uncle of
deceased, PW 4 Urmila Devi, mother of deceased, PW 5 Sbhoba
Kumar, sister of deceased and informant, PW 6 Upendra Singh,
villager who is said to have informed the father of deceased about
burning of the deceased, PW 7 K.K. Tiwari, A.S.I. of Police, who had
investigated the U.D. case, PW 8 Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh, who had
conducted the post mortem of deceased Prabha Devi and PW 9
Rameshwar Mishra, I.O. of the case.
6. Apart from that the following documents have been
brought on record on behalf of prosecution as exhibits, they are Ext.1-
letter dated 16.2.1986 of Ram Anugrah Singh, Ext.1/1- letter dated
1.10.1986 of Ram Anugrah Singh, Ext.2- signature of Shobha Kumar
on fardbeyan, Ext.2/1- signature of Vijyendra Singh on fardbeyan,
Ext.3- carbon copy of fardbeyan, Ext.4- carbon copy of inquest report,
Ext.5- carbon copy of challan, Ext.6- endorsement of Rameshwar
Mishra, O.C, Punpun on fardbeyan, Ext.7- carbon copy of seizure list
and Ext.8- post mortem report.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
5/14
7. On behalf of defence also five witnesses have been
examined, they are DW 1 Mahendra Thakur, DW 2 Rajesh Singh,
DW 3 Lal Behari Das, DW 4 Ramashis Paswan and DW 5 Kashi
Prasad mainly on the point that the relationship between the deceased
and her in-laws was cordial and while she was preparing breakfast in
the morning of 4.4.1990 her clothes caught fire, due to which she was
badly burnt and became unconscious and was taken to Dr. Satendra
Babu and later on carried to Patna and there she died. It is also the
case of the defence that she had 90% burning injuries.
8. Learned trial court on conclusion of trial has convicted the
appellants under Section 306 IPC and sentenced them as stated above.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
10. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that
learned trial court has convicted the appellant on the ground that she
made a statement before her death before PW 3 Suresh Singh and PW
5 the informant that she was tortured by the appellants and further
stated that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, her husband and her
Nanad, the present and surviving appellant, used to assault her and not
providing food to her and as she could not bear the same she herself
set her on fire. Evidence of PW 5 in paragraph-3 shows that she had
90% burn injury and evidence of Doctor (PW 8) disclosed that in case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
6/14
of 90% burn injury patient has become immediately unconscious and
in such a situation the aforesaid statement, which according to
prosecution is dying declaration, does not inspire confidence. Further
submission is that evidences of witnesses are contradictory to each
other so far her condition is concerned as the evidence of PW 3, para-
9 discloses that Prabha Devi, the deceased, was fully burnt and only
some part was left on face and when she came to Patna Junction she
became unconscious and she was admitted to the hospital in
unconscious condition, whereas the evidence of PW 5 discloses that
she was taken to hospital by tempo and mother of deceased (PW 4) in
her evidence in paragraph 5 disclosed that she had come on rickshaw
and evidence of PW 1, para-10 shows that she regained consciousness
in hospital. There is absolutely no evidence available on record to
show that she was in fit state of mind to make statement, rather
evidence shows that she had 90% burn injuries and in dead case and it
is not possible for her to give any statement and as such the aforesaid
evidence does not inspire confidence. On the basis of aforesaid
submission, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
impugned judgment has no basis and conviction of the appellant is not
just and proper and not sustainable in the eye of law.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
submitted that evidence of PW 3 and PW 5 clearly shows that in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
7/14
brake van in train she made statement, stating that due to unbearable
torture meted to her by her sasural people, i.e., father-in-law, mother-
in-law, husband and sister-in-law (Nanad), the present and surviving
appellant she herself set her on fire but there is absolutely no evidence
available on record to show that she was not in a position to speak and
as such learned trial court has rightly relying upon her statement
treating to be a dying declaration admissible under Section 32 of
Evidence Act has convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC.
12. In the background of rival submission of both the parties,
on perusal of the evidence of PW 3, para-3 disclosed that he had gone
to the brake van of train and asked the deceased as to why she had
committed such a thing on which she disclosed that since Monday she
was not provided food and when she went to prepare food she was not
allowed to do so and mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and her
sister-in-law (Nanad), all assaulted her and as such she could not bear
it and she herself set her on fire. Evidence of PW 5 further disclosed
that she was not provided food and she was assaulted by her sasural
people and as she could not bear the torture, she herself set her on fire.
It also appears from evidence of PW 5 that at PMCH Doctor informed
that she had 90% burn injury and according to this witness she was
conscious and also demanded water. Her evidence in paragraph-11
further disclosed that she was lying on a cot in brake van and except
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
8/14
face and leg the whole body was burnt and she was demanding water.
Her evidence also shows that she was not unconscious and after
reaching the hospital she became unconscious and she denied the
suggestion given to her that she was unconscious and was not in a
position to speak. PW 3 is another witness on the point of dying
declaration and his evidence in paragraph-3 also discloses that
deceased had disclosed that she was not provided food and also not
allowed to prepare food by her mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband
and sister-in-law and she was assaulted by them and due to that she
herself set her on fire. Evidence of PW 4, who is mother of deceased,
disclosed that by that time she was taken to hospital and she died.
Evidence of PW 1, who also claims to have gone along with deceased
to PMCH, in paragraph-10 disclosed that she regained consciousness
in Patna hospital. Evidence of PW 5 in paragraph-3 further disclosed
that she had 90% burn injury and except face and leg her whole body
was burnt. Evidence of Doctor (PW 8) disclosed in paragraph-2 that if
there is 90% burn injury patient becomes immediately unconscious. It
is well settled that for accepting dying declaration as to whether the
patient was fit in mental condition to speak, is of the prime
importance, whereas evidence of witnesses is contradictory to each
other so far the deceased was conscious or not and as to whether she
is in condition to speak as she had 90% burn injury. As such, in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
9/14
present case, the evidence is not free from reasonable doubt.
13. Another aspect of the matter about which learned counsel
for the appellant has raised that if the claim of the prosecution is
accepted that she was tortured, not provided food and as she could not
bear torture she committed suicide, the prosecution came to know
about the same on 4.4.1990 itself on the day she was taken to PMCH
but in spite of that no information was given to the police or
Chaukidar or in Panchayat till 8.4.1990 when the statement of the
informant was recorded first and that also creates a doubt about the
prosecution case. In this case I find that first an U.D. case has been
lodged on the information of Chaukidar and ASI (PW 7) was sent for
enquiry about the U.D. case and he has recorded the statement of Ram
Anugrah Singh, father-in-law of deceased at PMCH and he has stated
that he did not find any member of informant’s side present there.
Later on it appears that on 8.4.1990 Darogaji has recorded statement
of the informant in his village Akona, there is absolutely no evidence
available on record that in between 4.4.1990 to 8.4.1990, either
informant (PW 5) or her father (PW 2) approached the police or
chaukidar or any other person or file any petition before the court
about she was being meted torture and due to that she committed
suicide. This is also one of the circumstances that goes against the
prosecution.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
10/ 14
14. Another aspect of the matter which appears from perusal
of the evidence that motive for torture is that accused persons were
interested in getting married of informant with debar of the deceased,
i.e., younger brother of Ajay Kumar and the witnesses have also
stated so in their evidence but there is absolutely nothing available ion
record to show that father-in-law or mother-in-law has ever
approached the father of the deceased for marriage of Shobha Devi,
the informant with Arun Kumar, rather evidence of PW 5 in
paragraph-16 disclosed that accused persons never went to her house
to ask for her marriage and the evidence of PW 4 in paragraph 6
disclosed that appellant Ram Anugrah Singh never asked her for
marriage of his son though she has stated that she was not ready to
marry her in the house of Ram Anugrah. On the other hand, the
evidence of Upendra Singh (PW 6) disclosed that person of Bauk
village came and asked for house of Brijendra and informed that her
daughter had set herself on fire and that shows that father of deceased
had been informed about setting her on fire.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that in
this case even according to prosecution, she was taken to Dr. Satendra
Singh first and Umesh, Jagat were present there and none of them
were examined by the prosecution and no explanation was sought for
their non-examination.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
11/ 14
16. It appears that Jagat and Umesh were family members of
the appellants and as such they might not have been examined but
non-examination of Dr. Satendra to whose hospital the deceased was
taken first is not being examined by the prosecution, he ought to be
an important witness about the mental state of deceased and similarly
the Doctor who has first examined her (deceased) has also not been
examined and only the Doctor, who has conducted the post mortem,
has been examined. Had he been examined in this case the defence
would have got a chance to cross examine him about the mental state
of affairs of the deceased whether she was conscious or unconscious
or whether she has been able to speak as the prosecution evidence is
contradictory to each other, hence aforesaid question remained
unanswered.
17. Learned trial court relying upon the evidence of torture
has taken aid of Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act and considering
the definition of cruelty under Section 498A IPC has concluded that
there shall be presumption against the appellants and on the basis of
aforesaid presumption and as defence case that she died while
preparing food does not appear to be probable and relying on a
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. State
of Haryana : 2001(1) P.C.C.R. 284 paragraphs 8 to 10 has convicted
the appellant. I am well aware to the settled principle of law as laid
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
12/ 14
down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision but every case has
its own fact and for raising of presumption under Section 113 A the
prosecution has to prove the evidence of cruelty beyond all shadow of
reasonable doubts and only then the question of presumption shall
arise.
18. In the present case prosecution evidence is that the
deceased was tortured as appellants were interested in marrying the
younger son of Ram Anugrah Singh with the younger daughter of
informant and as deceased was resisting the same, due to that she used
to be tortured and evidence of PWs 3 and 5 disclosed that she
disclosed in the brake van of train that she was not provided food and
not allowed even to prepare of food and used to be assaulted by
father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and sister-in-law, the
appellants, and as such she herself set her on fire. The evidence is
general in nature and all the family members have been named as the
persons who used to assault and not provided food to her but it
appears from perusal of the order sheet of learned trial court that at the
time of occurrence the present appellant Punam Kumari was 17 years
of age and in such a situation relying on the evidence that she has also
assaulted mainly in absence of any specific allegation against her of
torture and assault really does not inspire confidence, as she was a
teenage girl at that time and as to why she would be interested in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
13/ 14
marriage of his brother with informant, remained unanswered. In such
view of the matter, only on the fact and general allegation against the
appellant, who was aged 17 years at the time of occurrence,
considering that she has also subjected to cruelty and was responsible
for committing suicide does not inspire confidence.
19. Learned trial court has also considered the story that she
suffered burn injuries while she was preparing food is not at all
believable and he has also taken advantage taking into consideration
all the above facts on defence explanation as not probable has also
considered the same as one of the circumstances. However, once from
the above discussion, the dying declaration is itself doubtful and
evidence of cruelty against the appellant Punam Kumari does not
inspire confidence apart from the other infirmities discussed above as
such merely on the ground of defence explanation is not probable and
for that the conviction cannot be sustained.
20. In view of entire discussions made above, it appears that
learned trial court has not considered all the above aspects of the
matter and also not considered the inconsistencies and infirmities, as
stated above and convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC,
rather in the above facts and circumstances, as discussed above, the
appellant ought to have entitled to benefit of doubt.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.63 of 2003 dt.16-08-2018
14/ 14
judgment and order are set aside with respect to the appellant Punam
Kumari. As the appellant is on bail, she is directed to be discharged
from the liabilities of her bail bonds.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
spal/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 07.08.2018
Uploading Date 16.08.2018
Transmission 18.08.2018
Date