IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.164 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -23 Year- 2009 Thana -CHAKAI District- JAMUI
Pramod Kumar Verma, S/o Tulsi Prasad Verma, Resident of Village-Manakola,
Police Station- Chakai, District Jamui.
…. …. Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar …. …. Respondent/s
with
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 136 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -23 Year- 2009 Thana -CHAKAI District- JAMUI
1. Tulsi Prasad Verma, Son of Topi Mahto.
2. Chunki Devi, Wife of Tulsi Prasad Verma.
3. Chhote Lal Verma, Son of Tulsi Prasad Verma.
All resident of village – Manakola, Police Station – Chakai, District – Jamui.
…. …. Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar …. …. Respondent/s
Appearance:
(In CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
(In CR. APP (SJ) No.136 of 2015)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.A. Ahmad, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 06-09-2017
1. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.164 of 2015 wherein
Pramod Kumar Verma is the appellant, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.
136 of 2015 wherein Tulsi Prasad Verma, Chunki Devi, Chhote Lal
Verma are the appellants commonly originate against the
judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2015 and order of sentence
dated 30.01.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in
Sessions Trial no.334 of 2009, on account thereof, have been
heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
2. All the appellants named above have been found
guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the IPC
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 2
and each one has been directed to undergo R.I. for ten years.
3. Jagdish Verma (PW.7) filed written report on
03.03.2009 disclosing therein that his daughter namely, Manju
Kumari (deceased) was married with Pramod Kumar Verma, son of
Tulsi Prasad Verma of village-Manakola on 28.04.2004 whereupon
came to her Sasural where she was staying. After sometime,
Pramod Kumar Verma, Tulsi Prasad Verma, Chunki Devi, Chhote
Lal Verma began to torture her for fulfillment of demand of cash
having made by the Pramod Kumar Verma. On being informed,
they rushed and tried to sort out a solution but, could not
materialized whereupon, panchayati was convened. They, (the
accused persons) have not conceded to accept the verdict of the
panchayati. During midst thereof, his daughter begotten a son
which is presently two and half years. About two months ago,
Pramod Kumar Verma demanded rupees fifty thousand on the
pretext that aforesaid amount was to be paid against appointment
as “Para Teacher” whereupon, he shown his inability on account
of indecency. However, he paid rupees five thousand in cash as
well as issued cheque appertaining to rupees five thousand in his
favour. On 01.03.2009 at about 07:00 PM his wife Tara Devi
dialed his daughter which was received by Pramod Kumar Verma.
On query, he said that today it would not be possible to have talk
with her daughter. She will be able to talk tomorrow. On
02.03.2009 at about 03:00 PM Pramod Kumar Verma dialed and
conveyed that condition of his daughter is serious and is admitted
at Jhajha Hospital. On this information, he rushed and reached at
the house of Pramod Kumar Verma on 02.03.2009 at about 07:00
PM where he found dead body of his daughter lying in the
courtyard. On query from the neighbours, he came to know that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 3
accused Pramod Kumar Verma, Tulsi Prasad Verma, Chunki Devi,
Chhote Lal Verma assaulted her on the preceding night as well as
they caused murder to his daughter. It has also been disclosed
that she was pregnant of seven months. It has also been disclosed
that he had not approached the police due to night.
4. After registration of Chakai P.S. Case No.23/2009,
investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of
charge sheet paving the way of trial which ultimately concluded by
way of recording conviction and sentence against the appellants,
subject matter of instant appeal.
5. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-
examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial of the occurrence. It has also
been submitted that during course of pregnancy deceased had
sustained severe complications whereupon, was taken to the clinic
of Dr. Jaya Mitra, Jhajha and during course of treatment she died.
To substantiate the same, DW.1 Keshav Tanti has been examined
to exhibit the prescription as Ext.A.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing
the judgment of conviction and sentence has raised manifold
arguments. The first and foremost happens to be that conviction
and sentence recorded for under Section 304B of the IPC is not at
all found substantiated from the evidence adduced on behalf of
prosecution. To substantiate the same, it has been submitted that
from the written report as well as from the evidence of the
witnesses, it is apparent that marriage was solemnized in the year
2004 and since thereafter, though in vagueness there happens to
be an allegation to the effect that victim was tortured for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 4
fulfillment of demand of dowry but, is not at all found
substantiated with any instance. That being so, it could be safely
interfered that there was no demand nay, torture on that very
pretext. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that right from
initial version of the prosecution, it is apparent that the cash
appertaining to rupees fifty thousand allegedly demanded by
appellant Pramod Kumar Verma was not in lieu of dowry nor it
should be as, the same was demanded for getting his appointment
as Para Teacher. That being so, the major ingredients for
constituting an offence under Section 304B of the IPC is not at all
found duly substantiated.
7. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that the
witnesses who have been examined in this case are the
Naiharwala of the deceased as their kith and kin only. Non of the
co-villagers of the appellants were examined during course of
investigation nor they have been cited as a charge sheet witness.
Furthermore, all of them happens to be hearsay in nature and so,
their evidences are inadmissible in the eye of law. That being so,
virtually it happens to be a case of no evidence.
8. It has further been submitted that PW.12, the
Investigating Officer had not found anything adverse during
course of inspection of the P.O. In likewise manner, it has also
been submitted that evidence of PW.9, the doctor who had
conducted postmortem also did not identify the culpability of the
appellants and the cumulative effect, as such it happens to be
nugatory steps are the end of the prosecution. So submitted that
the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned
lower court happens to be contrary to the spirit of law as well as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 5
based upon wrong, flimsy grounds consequent thereupon, is fit to
be set aside.
9. In an alternative, it has also been submitted that the
demand was advanced at the end of Pramod Kumar Verma, the
son-in-law having no positive, concrete evidence against the
remaining appellants and that being so, appellants Tulsi Prasad
Verma, Chunki Devi, Chhote Lal Verma who are in-laws deserve
acquittal.
10. Controverting the submission having made on behalf
of appellants, it has been submitted on behalf of learned A.P.P.
that death of deceased at her Sasural within seven years of
marriage otherwise than normal circumstance is found duly
substantiated by the evidence of PW.9, the doctor along with other
witnesses. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that witnesses
have categorically stated with regard to activity of all the
appellants during intervening period, including demand as well as
torture meted out to the deceased and that had been properly
analyzed by the learned lower court while holding the appellants
guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the
IPC, therefore the judgment of conviction and sentenced recorded
by the learned lower court did not attract interference.
11. In order to substantiate its case prosecution had
examined altogether twelve PWs, namely, PW.1 Ram Das Ram,
PW.2 Ganesh Verma, PW.3 Karman Verma, PW.4 Tara Devi, PW.5
Kaleshwar Prasad Verma, PW.6 Suresh Prasad Verma, PW.7
Jagdish Verma, PW.8 Sheo Shankar Prasad Verma, PW.9 Dr.
Arun Kumar Singh, PW.10 Kamleshwari Yadav, PW.11 Ratan
Kumar Verma and PW.12 Arjun Ram. Side by side had also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 6
exhibited, Written Report-Ext.1, Inquest Report-Ext.2, Postmortem
Report-Ext.3, Formal FIR-Ext.4, Cheque dated 12.12.2008 as
Ext.5 and the receipt having made by appellant Pramod Kumar
Verma as Ext.5/1. In likewise manner, defence had also examined
one DW.1 Keshav Tanti had exhibited prescription allegedly issued
by Dr. Jaya Mitra as Ext.A.
12. PW.9 had conducted postmortem over the dead body
of Manju Kumari on 03.03.2009 at about 02:15 PM and found the
following:
Rigor Morit was present in four limbs.
External examination:
(I) White froth coming out from left nostril while
blood as well as froth coming out from right
nostril.
(II) Swelling 3″x2″ with bruised area over left side of
face in front of left ear.
(III) Left eye mild congested.
(IV) Left side of face congested.(V) Abdomen protuberant.
On dissection- Abdominal distension due to
enlarged uterus about 28.30 week size. Fundua
of uterus and posterior surface of uterus
congested, on opening uterine cavity a female
dead fetus of 28-30 week size taken out.
Placenta attached with uterine well. Dark blood
clot over posterior wall of placenta behind uterus
in small amount. No haemoparitoneumia urinary
bladder full.Both lungs congested. No Haemothorax. Lumen
of trachea containing blood tinged froth. Right
chambers of heard full of dark blood, left
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 7chambers of heart empty.
No blood clots underneath the swelling over left
side of face in front of left ear.No any other internal or external injury found.
All the above injuries were ante-mortem caused
by closing mouth and nostrils at a time for
sometime by some soft substance may be by
pillow. Since injury till death within 3-4 minutes.
In the opinion of the doctor death was due to
asphyxia by closing the mouth and nostril at a
time. Time elapsed since death 12 to 18 hours.13. During cross-examination, it is evident that the
finding recorded by this PW had not been directly challenged at
the end of the appellant save and except proper identification of its
physiology and that happens to be reason behind, in para-6 he
had stated that asphyxia is a physiological phenomena occurring
in any human body due to lack of oxygenate in lungs arbula and
suffocation i.e. environmental phenomena in lack of oxygen in
external side. He had further stated that the froth comes out after
passing 3 to 4 mints of asphyxia. He had further stated that in
case of homicidal asphyxia by pressing the mouth and nostrils
there would be sign of eyes open, eye balls congested, face
congested and forth and forth blood clots which he mentioned in
the postmortem report. That being so, death of deceased Manju
otherwise than normal phenomenon is found duly substantiated
by the PW.9, doctor along with the fact that she was pregnant at
the time of her death. Now the evidence of remaining witnesses
have to be seen in order to adjudge finding recorded by the
learned lower court.
14. PW.1 had stated that deceased Manju Devi was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 8daughter of Jagdish Verma. This case has been instituted by
Jagdish Verma against Tulsi Prasad Verma, Chunki Devi, Chhote
Lal Verma. Manju Devi was married with Pramod Kumar Verma
about six years ago (on the day of his evidence) according to
Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, she began to reside at
her Sasural. After stay for sometime at her Sasural, she was
treated with cruelty at the ends of accused persons for
procurement of dowry and for that, she was even manhandled as
well as abused at due interval. Accused persons were demanding
rupees fifty thousand. Accused Pramod Kumar Verma even
advanced his demand from his father-in-law as well as mother-in-
law for payment of rupees fifty thousand to get himself employed
as Para Teacher. Jagdish had informed Pramod Kumar Verma
that he is unable to provide aforesaid amount even then, had paid
five thousand in cash as well as cheque appertaining to rupees
five thousand which he got encashed. On 01.03.2009, Tara Devi
had dialed to Manju Devi which was received by Pramod Kumar
Verma. He disclosed that Manju Devi is ill and is admitted at
Jhajha Hospital so, talk would not materialized. Tomorrow, he will
manage the same. On 02.03.2009 at about 03:00 PM Pramod
Kumar Verma had informed Jagdish Verma, his father-in-law that
Manju Devi is ill and is admitted at Hospital whereupon Jagdish
Verma and Suresh Verma rushed over motorcycle. During midst
of way, Pramod Kumar Verma again dialed and informed that
Manju Devi is now no more. Tara Devi had informed him with
regard to aforesaid event whereupon he along with Tara Devi,
Ganesh Prasad, Rohit Sah proceeded on motorcycle. They reached
at the house of accused in the night and found dead body of
Manju Devi having over cot in the courtyard. None were present.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 9From villagers they came to know that Pramod Kumar Verma,
Tulsi Prasad Verma, Chunki Devi, Chhote Lal Verma have
assaulted as a result of which she died. In torch light they have
had seen froth coming out from nostril, they have also seen blood
over her face as a result of which, they inferred that Manju Devi
has been murdered. Deceased was pregnant at that very time.
During cross-examination at para-3 he had stated that marriage
was solemnized about six years ago. Deceased had begotten a son
which is presently aged about two and half years. That child is
living with his father. In para-4 he had stated that he came to
know with regard to occurrence from the wife of informant. He had
further stated that Pramod Kumar Verma had informed regarding
the death. He had also informed regarding ailment of the
deceased. He had further stated that he is unable to disclose
names of the co-villagers of the Pramod Kumar Verma who had
disclosed regarding assault over the deceased. He had found blood
clot over one eye of the deceased. There was no injury over her
neck. He is not remembering whether he had seen the blood clot
over left eye or right eye. He had seen blood at the temporal
region. He had also seen the scare mark which was 2"-3" long over
temporal region. They have seen the dead body in torch light
which was not presented before the Investigating Officer. He had
denied the suggestion that Manju was ailing since before and on
account thereof she died. Court had also questioned him
whereupon he had stated that he had visited place of Manju Devi
after marriage twice or thrice. After the birth of son he had gone
there. At that very time, Manju Devi had not disclosed regarding
demand of dowry. Budhan Mahto was middle man during course
of negotiation. At the time of finalization of negotiation, he was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 10one of the participants. Rupees sixty five thousand, utensils, wrist
watch, ring, cloth were to be given which, the informant had
already given. There was nothing due. Then thereafter, he came to
know that deceased was being tortured over procurement of cash.
15. PW.2 had deposed that deceased happens to be his
niece who was married with Pramod Kumar Verma on 28.01.2004.
After marriage, she gone to her Sasural where, she began to reside
with her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Debar. After
spending sometime, her Sasuralwala began to torture her for
procurement of rupees fifty thousand in lieu of dowry. Aforesaid
demand was made for getting Pramod Kumar Verma employed as
"Para Teacher". Even though they were suffering from financial
crunch, gave rupees five thousand in cash as well as cheque of
rupees five thousand to Pramod Kumar Verma. Even then, the
lust of Pramod Kumar Verma was not satisfied. He continued with
demand. Lastly, a panchayati was convened which also failed. On
01.03.2009 at about 07:00 PM his Bhabhi, Tara Devi dialed to
Manju which was received by Pramod. He disclosed that
conversation with Manju Devi is not possible. On 02.03.2009
Pramod Kumar Verma dialled and informed his brother, informant
that condition of Manju Devi is not well as such she has been
admitted at Jhajha Hospital. Getting such information, his brother
Jagdish Verma proceeded on motorcycle along with Suresh
Prasad. Then thereafter, Pramod Kumar Verma again informed
that Manju Devi has died whereupon, he along with Tara Devi,
Ram Das Ram, Karman Verma, Mahendra Prasad, Rohit Sah, Nem
Chandrapuri gone to the place of Manju Devi where they saw dead
body of Manju Devi kept over cot in courtyard. They have also
seen blood clot over her nose as well as both ears. They have also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 11seen some mark over left temporal reason, left eyebrow. After close
inspection of face of deceased, they have also found her nose
pressed. At that very time, she was pregnant of seven months. On
query, the neighbours disclosed that Pramod Kumar Verma, Tulsi
Prasad Verma, Chunki Devi, Chhote Lal Verma had assaulted
Manju Devi as a result of which she died. Police came, prepared
inquest report in his presence over which he signed (exhibited).
Then had stated that accused persons have committed murder of
Manju Devi out of greed for money. During cross-examination, he
had stated that Hem Lal Mahto and Budhan Mahto were the
middleman during course of negotiation of marriage. He is not
remembering the exact time of negotiation as well as finalization.
He is simply knowing that the demand which were paid by the
other side have already been falsified. After marriage, deceased
had gone to her Sasural. After staying one day, she came back
and then, staying for a day, she again returned back to her
Sasural. At that very time there was no compliant at the end of
deceased. In para-6, he had stated that Manju Devi begotten a son
after one year of marriage. Till then, Manju Devi was enjoying her
stay at Sasural in good condition. In para-8, he had stated that
his brother had gone to see his daughter and at that very time, he
took away gift items, sweets etc. He had stated that he is unable
to disclose exact date on which cash appertaining to rupees five
thousand was paid to the Pramod Kumar Verma and in likewise
manner cheque issued in his name. In para-10, he had stated that
he is unable to disclose the exact date of panchayati. In para-11,
he had narrated that his Bhabhi Tara Devi had disclosed with
regard to her conversation with Pramod Kumar on 01.03.2009.
Pramod Kumar had disclosed with regard to ailment of Manju as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 12well as she was suffering from vomiting. In para-12 he had stated
that he had seen blood clot over ear as well as nose of Manju. He
had not seen cut mark over eyebrow. He had seen her nose was
pressed. He had not seen any visible sign over her nose. In para-
13, he had stated that he is unable to disclose names of different
persons who had disclosed regarding assault over Manju Devi by
her Sasuralwala. He had further stated that in para-14 that they
arrived at the place of Manju Devi at about 09:00 PM. In para-15,
he had stated that he had not called Chowkidar and in likewise
manner Mukhiya as well as Surpanch. Thana lies at a distance of
2-3 KM. They have gone to the place of Manju on motorcycle. They
have not gone to Police Station in the night. He is unable to say
the exact time whereunder one could arrive at Chakai P.S. from
the place of occurrence. In para-16, he stated that on following
day, they have gone to Police Station. When police took away the
dead body, then thereafter he left place of Manu Devi. Police had
arrived at about 7-8 AM and stayed for an hour. Police was
informed by his brother. His brother had recorded his fardbeyan.
He had denied the suggestion that his niece was ill and was
properly treated, and during course of treatment she died. He had
also denied the suggestion that he falsely deposed.
16. PW.3 Karman Verma had deposed that this case has
been instituted by Jagdish Prasad Verma against accused Pramod
Kumar Verma, Tulsi Prasad Verma, Chunki Devi, Chhote Lal
Verma. Deceased Manju Devi was daughter of Jagdish Prasad
Verma who was married with Pramod Kumar Verma on
28.04.2004. Pramod Kumar Verma is resident of Mankola. Few
months after the marriage they began to torture deceased Manju
Devi for procurement of rupees fifty thousand from her father.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 13Manju Devi informed her parents. Parents of Manju Devi had
informed him whereupon they have gone to Mukhiya Kauleshwar
Verma. Mukhiya of Chakai had also arrived and then, they have
convened panchayati but, accused persons avoid the same. Manju
Devi had begotten a son who is presently aged about four years.
He had further stated that accused persons committed murder of
Manju Devi at Mankola itself. Pramod Kumar Verma had informed
over mobile over which he along with his sister Tara Devi, Ramdeo
Ram, Ganesh Verma have gone while Jagdish had gone earlier to
them. When they reached at the place of accused, they found dead
body of Manju Devi. They have seen blood coming out from nose.
They have also seen scratch mark at different parts of body.
During cross-examination, he had admitted that he happens to be
maternal uncle of deceased Manju Devi. He had further stated
that his father is alive but is an old. He had further stated that he
had participated during course of marriage of Manju Devi. He had
further stated that whatever been finalized during course of
negotiation, same was paid. Nothing due remained. In para-5, he
had stated that he had not gone to the place of Manju Devi. He
had further stated that the son of Manju Devi is residing along
with his father. In para-6, he had stated that he is unable to
disclose date of torture having meted out to Manju. He had further
stated that no Sanha was lodged relating to torture. He had
further stated that rupees fifty thousand was demanded two
months prior to death of Manju. He had further stated that one
Sanha was instituted thereafter. In para-7, he had stated that he
is unable to disclose the date of panchayati. He had further stated
that he is unaware with regard to cause of death of Manju Devi.
He had further stated that Pramod Kumar Verma had informed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 14regarding ailment of Manju Devi as well as having been admitted
at Jhajha Hospital. He had further stated that Pramod Kumar
Verma had informed his brother-in-law Jagdish with regard to
death of Manju. He had not seen blood over the earth beneath the
cot over which dead body of Manju was kept. Blood was over the
bed. In para-8, he had further stated that police had come on the
following day at about 8-10 AM. Police had seen bloodstain over
bed as well as blouse. He had further stated that police had taken
away the bed along with dead body. He further stated that he had
not seen cut mark over the dead body of Manju. He had further
stated that he had not gone along with police to P.S. After
departure of the dead body, he returned back. In para-9, he had
deposed that police had recorded his statement on the following
day itself. He had further narrated that he had stated before the
police that Pramod Kumar Verma had informed regarding death of
Manju Devi over mobile of Jagdish Prasad. In para-9, he had
denied the suggestion that Manju Devi was suffering from some
sort of ailment since before as a result of which she died.
17. PW.4 is the mother of victim. She had deposed that
Manju was married with Pramod Kumar Verma on 28.04.2004.
Pramod Kumar Verma is resident of Manakola. After marriage
Manju began to reside at her Sasural where, after sometime,
husband Pramod Kumar Verma, father-in-law Tulsi Verma,
brother-in-law (Debar) Chhote Lal and mother-in-law Chunki Devi
began to abuse as well as assault. They were demanding
motorcycle as well as rupees fifty thousand and for that her
daughter was being coerced. As the aforesaid demand was not
fulfilled on account thereof, she was being tortured. Then had
deposed that Pramod Kumar Verma came to her place about two
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 15months ago from the date of occurrence and demanded rupees
fifty thousand so that he be able to get appointed under Para
Teacher. Her husband Pramod Kumar Verma had given rupees
five thousand in cash as well as one cheque appertaining to
rupees five thousand of Gramin Bank. Then had stated that she
had dialed on 02-03-Fagun to her daughter which was received by
Pramod Kumar Verma. She requested him to facilitate talk with
her daughter over which Pramod Kumar Verma had disclosed that
it is not possible today. Tomorrow she will be able to talk with her.
After sometime, Pramod Kumar Verma had informed her husband
requesting him to come hurriedly as Manju was admitted at
Jhajha Hospital over which her husband and Suresh Verma her
debar proceeded therefrom to Manakola. She dialed to Chhote Lal
whereupon she was informed by him that Manju is all right. After
two hour, when she again dialed Chhote Lal, he informed that
Manju died. Her husband had also informed her regarding death
of Manju Devi. She, after getting information regarding death of
her daughter gone to her place. They have seen dead body of
Manju lying over cot in courtyard. They have seen the dead body.
They have found some mark over her face whereupon they
informed that her Sasuralwala had caused her murder on account
of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. During cross-examination
at para-4 she had stated that she happens to be illiterate having
no knowledge regarding English calendar. At para-5 she had
stated that whatever they undertook to give at the time of
negotiation, they have given and in the aforesaid background,
marriage was solemnized in pleasant atmosphere. After vidai,
Manju Devi gone to her Sasural and began to reside there. Out of
aforesaid marriage, she begotten a son who, presently is residing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 16with his father. In para-6 she had stated that she is unable to say
the exact date on which demand was made and the successive
dates over which she (deceased) was tortured. She had further
stated that no Sanha was lodged with regard to demand. She had
further disclosed that she never visited to the place of Manju
before her death. In para-7 she had deposed that she is unable to
say the exact date on which her husband had paid rupees five
thousand in cash as well as issued cheque in his favoured. She
had further stated that her husband had paid the amount after
borrowing from his brother Nakul and Ganesh. She came to know
after having disclosed by her husband. She had further stated
that her son-in-law happens to be compounder and earns Rs.10-
20 per day. In para-9 she had stated that Pramod Kumar Verma
had informed regarding ailment of Manju on phone. In para-10
she had stated that when she reached at the place of occurrence,
police was not there. Her husband was there. Dead body of Manju
was covered. Burned incense was there. Blood was not oozing out
from the injuries. In para-11 she had said that she had not
informed the police in the night though they have gone over
motorcycle. In para-12 she had stated that on the following day,
her husband had gone to police station where he gave fardbeyan.
Police also inquired from her. She had made her statement.
18. PW.5, Kaleshwar Prasad Verma, who happens to be
co-villager of the appellant. He had deposed that Manju Devi
daughter of Jagdish Verma was married with Pramod Kumar
Verma about four years ago. She died at her Sasural. How she
died, he is unable to say. There was cordial relation amongst the
spouse. During cross-examination he had stated that he used to
reside at Chakai chowk since 1999. He had further stated that he
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 17had not convened panchayati at the instance of Jagdish Verma.
19. PW.6 had stated that Manju Devi daughter of
Jagdish Prasad Verma was married with Pramod Kumar Verma on
28.04.2004. After marriage, she had gone to Sasural and began to
reside. During course of her stay, her Sasuralwala began to
advanced demand of rupees fifty thousand on the pretext of
getting employment under Education Department. Father of
Manju had given cash appertaining to rupees five thouand as well
as cheque of rupees five thousand but, as the demand was not
satisfied by such offer on account thereof, she was subjected to
torture as well as harassment. He had further stated that he is
unable to say how Manju Devi had died. But she died at her
Sasural. He had also accompanied Jagdish Verma to the place of
Manju after coming to know to about her death. During cross-
examination, he had stated that he happens to be neighbour of
Jagdish Verma. He had not gone to the Sasural of Manju at an
earlier occasion. He had further stated that he had got no
information with regard to terms and condition of the negotiation
of marriage. Manju had begotten a son which is residing with his
father. The payment of rupees five thousand, issuance of cheque
of rupees five thousand, demand of rupees fifty thousand and
torture, harassment having inflicted upon deceased was disclosed
by Jagdish Prasad Verma. In para-7 he had disclosed that he had
gone to Manatola over motorcycle. They reached at Manatola
about 6-7 PM, but could not go to police station at that moment.
On the following day, at about 6-7 AM they have gone to police
station where informant Jagdish Verma gave his fardbeyan over
which, he put his signature. Then, thereafter, he returned back to
his house. On court question he had stated that he had not talked
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 18with any co-villager. Jagdish Verma had talked but he is unable to
disclose their names. They remained at the Sasural of Manju
whole night. At that very time Pramod Kumar Verma, Chhote Lal
Verma and Tunki Devi were present. They have seen dead body of
Manju Devi which was kept over cot in a courtyard. Her dead body
was covered. He had seen blood clot over her nose as well as ear.
He had also seen mark of injury over her left temporal region. The
members of the house were weeping.
20. PW.7 is Jagdish Verma, informant himself, who had
stated that deceased was his daughter who was married with
Pramod Kumar Verma son of Tulsi Verma on 28.04.2004. After
marriage Manju had gone to her Sasural where she began to
reside. After sometime she was being harassed at the end of
Pramod Kumar Verma, Tulsi Prasad, Tunki Devi and Chhote Lal
for dowry. They were demanding cash in lieu thereof. After having
informed, he along with Ram Das came at the Sasural of his
daughter and then convened a panchayati wherein mukhiya
Kaleshwar had presided. Accused persons did not obey the dictum
of the panchayati. They were demanding rupees fifty thousand for
getting employment as Para Teacher. He flatly refused on account
of financial crunch however, paid rupees five thousand in cash as
well as issued cheque of rupees five thousand to Pramod Kumar
Verma on 12.02.2008. His daughter begotten a son who was two
and half years at the time of occurrence. His daughter was
pregnant of seven months. On 01.03.2009 his wife Tara Devi
dialed Manju Devi to talk which was received by Pramod Kumar
Verma. Pramod had disclosed that today it is not possible
however, it will be facilitated tomorrow. On 02.03.2009 at about
03:00 PM Pramod informed him to come as Manju is ill and is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 19admitted at Jhajha Hospital. Accordingly, he along with Suresh
Prasad proceeded over motorcycle. When they reached at the place
of Pramod found dead body of Manju in the courtyard of house.
He conversed with the villagers and during course thereof, came to
know that in the preceding night her husband, father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Debar) assaulted her as a
result of which she died. Blood was coming from her nostril, left
ear. There was sign of injury over her left eyebrow. On 03.03.2009
he had tendered written report before the Officer-in-charge
(exhibited). Police came and prepared inquest report (exhibited).
Police took his further statement. Identified the accused. During
cross-examination at para-6, he had stated that Sasural of Manju
Devi lies 70-80 K.M. from his village. He had further stated that
they have not gone to Jhajha. They directly gone to Manatola.
They have gone inside house where found dead body over cot in a
courtyard. None of the family members were indulged in ritual.
None were present. Even after their arrival, none of the co-villager
came, dead body was covered with a cloth. They have not changed
the position of the dead body. There was no bloodstain over the
cloth by which dead body was covered. After sometime, the
neighbours came but he is unable to disclose their names. They
remained whole night. They have not gone to P.S. in the night. In
para-6 he had further stated that on 02.03.2009 Pramod Kumar
Verma had informed regarding ailment of Manju. He had also
informed that she was admitted at Jhajha. In para-7 he had
deposed that he was also interested in getting his son-in-law
appointed and for that, he had contributed the amount. In para-8
he had said that marriage was solemnized under congenial
atmosphere. Deceased had gone to her Sasural. Deceased visited
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 20his place at different occasions. She had also begotten a son after
two years of marriage. At that very time he had gone there with
gift. No case was instituted at an earlier occasion though
panchayati was convened. In para-9 he had denied the suggestion
that as he had demanded the money from Sasuralwala of Manju
after her death which they refused on account thereof, instant
case has been filed.
21. PW.8, Sheo Shankar Prasad Verma is co-villager of
the appellant who had deposed that Manju Devi was married with
Pramod Kumar Verma about four years ago. She had begotten a
child. Manju is dead. She died at her Sasural. At the time of
occurrence she was pregnant of seven months. He had further
stated that on the alleged date of occurrence she had gone outside
to meet natures call and during course thereof, she developed
some sort of fear psychosis as a result of which, she suffered from
mysterious disease and for that, she was taken to Jhajha. Doctor
had referred to Patna and during midst thereof, she died. Then
thereafter, he was declared hostile. In usual course, during cross-
examination he had supported the case of the defence, that she
was being kept in good condition at her Sasural. There was no
demand.
22. PW.10 is a formal witness who had exhibited the
endorsement over the written report as well as formal FIR. PW.11
is also a formal witness who had exhibited the cheque issued but
informant in favour of appellant Pramod, as well as its receipt
having tendered by the Bank relating to its encashment.
23. PW.12 is the Investigating Officer. He had deposed
that after registration of the case, Officer-in-charge had entrusted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 21him with the investigation and during course thereof, he took
further statement of the informant, statement of witnesses,
prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for postmortem.
He had inspected the place of occurrence which happens to be
house of accused persons and then had detailed the topography
of the P.O. including location of the dead body having kept in the
courtyard over a cot. Further disclosed boundary of the aforesaid
house. Recorded statement of the witnesses. Arrested Pramod
Kumar Verma. Procured postmortem report and then, submitted
charge sheet. During cross-examination at para-4 he had stated
that on cursory perusal of the dead body, he found pregnancy but,
he had not mentioned the same in the inquest report. In para-5,
he had stated that he had received postmortem report on
24.03.2009. He had not requested the doctor to transmit the same
at an earliest. He had further stated that he had not gone through
the postmortem report. In para-6, he had stated that he had not
found any kind of objectionable item at the place of occurrence.
He had further stated that he had not gone to the Branch
Manager of Udnawah Gramin Bank nor he took his statement. He
had further stated that he had not inquired over treatment having
provided to the deceased at Jhajha. He had further stated that at
the time of inspection of the P.O., villagers have assembled but he
had not taken statement of any of them. He had further stated
that he had not investigated whether Pramod Kumar Verma was
one of the candidate of Para Teacher or not. He had further stated
that he had not obtained call details.
24. From the evidence as available on the record, it is
evident that deceased was done to death otherwise than normal
circumstance at her Sasural and the finding of PW.9 doctor
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 22substantiated the same. It also goes out of controversy that
deceased was done to death within seven years of her marriage.
With regard to demand of dowry and torture, it is evident that just
two months prior to the death of occurrence father of deceased
had given cash as well as cheque and the said cheque has been
brought up on record by PW.11 having been encashed by the
appellant Pramod. Furthermore, there happens to be no denial at
the end of appellants on that very score nor there happens to be
any kind of explanation to suggest that aforesaid cheque was
issued against some other activity and not to satisfy the demand.
Now, the question remains whether that demand will constitute
dowry, and in likewise manner, subsequent event of torture.
25. In Bachni Devi Anr. v. State of Haryana
through Secretary, Home Department reported in AIR 2011 SC
1098 wherein similar question was raised the Apex Court had
decided the issue explaining Appasaheb case reported in AIR
2007 SC 763 in the following terms:
"16. While dealing with the term 'dowry' in Section
304B IPC, this Court in the case of Kamesh Panjiyar
alias Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC
388 held as under :"14. The word "dowry" in Section 304-B IPC has to
be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the
Dowry Act. Thus, there are three occasions related to
dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the
time of marriage and the third "at any time" after the
marriage. The third occasion may appear to be
unending period. But the crucial words are "in
connection with the marriage of the said parties". As
was observed in the said case "suicidal death" of a
married woman within seven years of her marriage is
covered by the expression "death of a woman is
caused ... or occurs otherwise than under normal
circumstances" as expressed in Section 304-B IPC.""17. Learned counsel for the appellants heavily
relied upon the following observations made by this
Court in the case of Appasaheb (AIR 2007 SC 763):"A demand for money on account of some financial
stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic
expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 23as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally
understood."The above observations of this Court must be
understood in the context of the case. That was a case
wherein the prosecution evidence did not show 'any
demand for dowry' as defined in Section 2 of the 1961
Act. The allegation to the effect that the deceased was
asked to bring money for domestic expenses and for
purchasing manure in the facts of the case was not
found sufficient to be covered by the 'demand for
dowry'. Appasaheb (AIR 2007 SC 763) cannot be read
to be laying down an absolute proposition that a
demand for money or some property or valuable
security on account of some business or financial
requirement could not be termed as 'demand for
dowry'. It was in the facts of the case that it was held
so. If a demand for property or valuable security,
directly or indirectly, has a nexus with marriage, in
our opinion, such demand would constitute 'demand
for dowry'; the cause or reason for such demand being
immaterial."26. In Maya Devi and another v. State of Haryana
reported in 2016 Cr.L.J. 629, the desirability of Section 304B as
well as implication of Section 113B of the Evidence Act has been
properly explained and concluded as follows:
"21. Section 304B IPC does not categorize death as
homicidal or suicidal or accidental. This is because
death caused by burns can, in a given case, be
homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Similarly, death
caused by bodily injury can, in a given case, be
homicidal or suicidal or accidental. Finally, any death
occurring "otherwise than under normal
circumstances" can, in a given case, be homicidal or
suicidal or accidental. Therefore, if all the other
ingredients of Section 304B IPC are fulfilled, any death
(homicidal or suicidal or accidental) whether caused by
burns or by bodily injury or occurring otherwise than
under normal circumstances shall, as per the
legislative mandate, be called a "dowry death" and the
woman's husband or his relative "shall be deemed to
have caused her death". The section clearly specifies
what constitutes the offence of dowry death and also
identifies the single offender or multiple offenders who
has or have caused the dowry death.22. The key words under Section 113B of the
Evidence Act, 1872 are "shall presume" leaving no
option with a court but to presume an accused
brought before it of causing a dowry death guilty of
the offence. However, the redeeming factor of this
provision is that the presumption is rebuttable.Section 113B of the Act enables an accused to prove
his innocence and places a reverse onus of proof on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 24him or her. In the case on hand, accused persons
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
deceased died a natural death. When Kavita allegedly
committed suicide, her husband-appellant No.2,
though he was not present in the house, was present
in his office at M.D. University, Rohtak at the relevant
time but he did not make any sincere effort to take
her to the hospital which was very near to the place of
the incident. Similarly, appellant No. 2 got the
deceased examined by DW-2 in order to create an
impression that she was struggling with chronic
depression but the truth floated upon the surface
when the deceased reveals that the accused persons
were maltreating her and she had started picking up
the ideas of suicide. Lastly, appellant No. 2 falsely
informed the court that having learnt about the death
of his wife Kavita, he left for Delhi to inform her family
members. In fact, the accused never went to Delhi
and the complainant received a telephonic message
from an unknown person regarding the death of his
daughter. So far as Maya Devi-appellant No. 1 herein
is concerned, there is no denying the fact that she was
working as a teacher in a government school and she
was not present at the relevant time at the place of
incident but it is very much clear from the evidence
on record that both the accused persons had a
dominating role in the entire episode and she had
always accompanied her son-appellant No. 2 herein to
the house of the complainant (PW-3) for the dowry
demands. The presumption under Section 113B of the
Act is mandatory may be contrasted with Section
113A of the Act which was introduced
contemporaneously. Section 113A of the Act, dealing
with abetment of suicide, uses the expression "may
presume". This being the position, a two-stage process
is required to be followed in respect of an offence
punishable under Section 304-B IPC: it is necessary
to first ascertain whether the ingredients of the
Section have been made out against the accused; if
the ingredients are made out, then the accused is
deemed to have caused the death of the woman but is
entitled to rebut the statutory presumption of having
caused a dowry death. From the evidence on record,
we are of the opinion that in the present case Kavita
died an unnatural death by committing suicide as she
was subjected to cruelty/harassment by her husband
and in-laws in connection with the demand for dowry
which started from the time of her marriage and
continued till she committed suicide. Thus, the
provisions of Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC will
be fully attracted."27. True it is that Investigating Officer PW.12 has been
cross-examined on the score that whether he had investigated
over the fact that the appellant Pramod to be an applicant against
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 25the post of Para Teacher, however, it is crystal clear that none of
the prosecution witnesses more particularly the mother Tara Devi,
PW.4 and father Jagdish Verma, PW.7 who categorically stated
that demand was on that very score, part payment was made only
two months ago from the date of occurrence and further having
been duly substantiated by Ext.5, 5/1, neither been denied nor
challenged. Not only this, they have not been challenged
controverting their evidence with regard to status of appellant
Pramod Kumar Verma as one of the candidate over Para Teacher.
On the other hand, PW.7 informant was cross-examined to the
extent whether he will see his son-in-law appointed or not. The
demand, as advanced from the parents of deceased was in the
background of relationship bonded with marriage, and so, it has
got proper inter connectivity. That being so, the prosecution is
found to have substantiated its case and on account thereof, in
terms of Section 113B of the Evidence Act the presumption is to
be taken against the appellant /accused. However, the same is
subject to rebuttal and so, the conduct of the appellants have to
be seen in order to search out whether if they have been able to
properly discharge the legal obligation.
28. In order to discharge such presumption in terms of
Section 113B, defence has exhibited Ext.A, the prescription
containing names of Dr. Kanhaiya Kumar Shethi as well as Dr.
Jaya Mitra and got it exhibited through DW.1, Keshav Tanti who
during examination-in-chief had stated that it happens to be in
pen of Dr. Jaya Mitra. Furthermore, it has also been deposed by
him that signature of husband of deceased Manju is also there.
During cross-examination, this witness had categorically admitted
that there happens to be no signature of the doctor over the same
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2015 dt.06-09-2017 26and that speaks a lot with regard to genuineness of the document.
Moreover, presence of appellant Pramod Kumar Verma over the
aforesaid prescription is indicative of the fact that this false
document has been created by him in order to save his skin. That
being so, it is apparent that defence had failed to discharge its
obligation to the hilt.
29. Taking into account the evidence as discussed
above, the reasoning so expressed, it is found and held that
prosecution had succeeding in proving its case simultaneously,
defence had failed to discharge its onus and that being so, the
finding so recorded by the learned lower court happens to be just,
legal and proper and is accordingly, affirmed. Consequent
thereupon, these appeals sans merit and are dismissed. Appellant
Pramod Kumar Verma is under custody which he will remain till
saturation of the period of sentence while bail bond of appellants
Tulsi Prasad Verma, Chunki Devi, Chhote Lal Verma (Criminal
Appeal (SJ) No. 136 of 2015) are hereby cancelled with a direction
to surrender before the learned lower court within fortnight to
serve out the remaining part of sentence failing which, the learned
lower court take proper step in accordance with law.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)
Prakash Narayan
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 11.09.2017
Transmission 11.09.2017
Date