1. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.3.2003 and 6.3.2003 respectively
passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner -cum-Special Judge-IV, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1996 arising out of Bariatu P.S. Case no.
32 of 1995, G.R. no. 771 of 1995 whereby and whereunder appellant Malti Devi was convicted u/s 304 B and 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for seven years u/s 304B IPC. She was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.
1000/- and in default thereof further sentenced for two months S.I. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Appellant Niranjan
Dubey was convicted u/s 498 A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years u/s 498 A of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in
default thereof S.I. for two months.
2. As per the report of O/c Baritu P.S. dated 16.9.2018 appellant in Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No. 350 of 2003 Malti Devi wife of Sarju Duibey has died and
passed away. A death certificate of Malti Devi has also been annexed. Hence, appeal of the aforesaid appellant stands abated.
3. The case of prosecution as per fardbeyan of Ramashis Tiwary PW-9 in brief is that the marriage of his sister Mina Devi daughter of Nidhu Tiwary
had taken place with accused Niranjan Dubey on 22.4.1992 in Ranchi. After 2 to 3 months they took Mina Devi back to her parents’ house at
Palamau because of the ill treatment of the appellants. It is further alleged that when Mina Devi was in her in laws’ house, the informant used to
visit occasionally to his sister’s house and Mina Devi used to complaint against the accused persons. Father-in-law of the deceased Saryu Dubey
sent a letter and demanded money in order to purchase Auto Rickshaw for accused Niranjan Dubey. But they were not in a position to oblige the
demand made by Saryu Dubey. Mina Devi gave birth to a male child in her parents’ house. Thereafter, accused Niranjan Dubey came to the
house of informant and took Mina Devi and child with him. Mina Devi was tortured and assaulted by the appellants. The informant received
information in the shop on 29.3.1995 that his sister Mina Devi was burnt by the accused persons. On receipt of information informant rushed to
RMCH hospital where he found his sister was completely burnt. Niranjan Dubey and Saryu Dubey told the informant that she sustained burn injury
from the stove but the informant came to the locality where the neighbours of the accused persons disclosed that the accused persons have burnt the
deceased Mina Devi. It is further alleged that Saryu Dubey wanted to kill his sister in order to perform second marriage of his son Niranjan Dubey. It
is further said that 10 days prior to the occurrence the deceased had written a letter to his brother wherein there was clear cut allegation of assault by
the accused persons.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan Bariatu P.S. Case No. 32 of 1995 was registered. After the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against
above noted accused appellants. Cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed
against the accused persons under section 304B/498A IPC and u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was denied by them. After the trial, accused
appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, these appeals.
5. In support of its case prosecution had examined altogether 11 witnesses.
P.W.1 Chandrika Sukla PW-2 Sabitri Devi, PW.3 Gautam Kumar, P.W.4 Sarswati Devi, P.W.5 Victoria Toppo, P.W.-6 Nidhu Tiwary, P.W.7 Menka
Devi, P.W.8 Ram Pravesh Tiwary, P.W. 9 Ramashis Tiwary, P.W. 10 Dr. Tulsi Mahto and P.W.-11 Pritam Sharma.P.W.-9 is the informant of the
case and brother of deceased. PW-2,PW-3 and PW-7 were declared hostile. Defence examined four witnesses. DW-1 Ramni Babu, DW-2 Veena
Upadhyaya, D.W.-3 Jitendra Kumar Dubey and DW-4 Renu Devi.
6. At the outset it is pertinent to note tht appellant Niranjan Dubey was acquitted of the charges u/s 304 B of IPC regading dowry death of Mina Devi
by burning and he was convicted for the charges u/s 498A IPC by the learned court below. Hence, the evidence of independent prosecution witnesses
PW-3,PW-4 and PW-5 who gave evidences on the point of burning of the deceased requires no discussions. Hence, this court will consider evidences
of only those witnesses who have said regarding the offence u/s 498A IPC and try to find out guilt or innocence of the remaining appellant Niranjan
Dubey.
7. PW-9 is Ramashis Tiwary, the informant as well as brother of the deceased. He deposed that after marriage his sister went to his matrimonial
home. Two months after the marriage Mina Devi had come to her father’s house wherein she made complaint against the family members of her
in laws house and said that they used to torture her for demand of dowry. He further deposed that in-laws of deceased used to demand money for
purchase of auto rickshaw for Niranjan Dubey but they were not in a position to oblige them. Thereafter his sister gave birth to a male child in her
paternal home. After the birth of child Niranjan Dubey took her and child back to his home. Even thereafter they used to assault Mina Devi for
money. His sister told him that appellants were threatening to kill her and they wanted to arrange another marriage for Niranjan Dubey after taking
dowry of Rs. 1 lakh. On 29.3.1995 the informant got information that accused persons burnt her sister. On getting information he went to RMCH
where the accused persons disclosed that Mina Devi sustained injury from stove. On 30.3.1995 at 10 a.m. he went to staff quarter Bariatu to get
information where he came to know that in â€"laws had burnt her sister. On 31.3.1995 his sister died in hospital. On 30.3.1995 when he got
information from neighbours regarding burning of his sister then on that day he had not lodged an FIR at the Police Station. He had gone to the police
station, but the daroga jee had told that to lodge the case when his sister is able to speak or after she died. He further said that ten days prior to her
death, a letter was received by him which was written by Mina Devi wherein she had alleged regarding assault. This letter was marked as Ext.X.
8. P.W.-6 Nidhu Tiwary is the father of the deceased. He deposed that his daughter was married to Niranjan Dubey in April 1992. After marriage
she went to her matrimonial home. She came to his house after four months. She told that accused used to say that your father gave less money so
she will be sent away. He further deposed that Mina Devi gave birth to a male child in his home then Niranjan Dubey came and took her to his house
and there she was assaulted for money. Again his daughter was sent back to his house. His daughter lived in his house for eight months. After eight
month Niranjan came and wanted to take his daughter and when Mina did not want to go, Niranjan Dubey told that he would commit suicide. Then he
gave bidai of his daughter with his son-in-law. He further deposed that Niranjan Dubey used to assault Mina Devi on the pretext that her father gave
less money. Saryu Dubey gave a letter to his son Ramashis Tiwary that money was demanded to purchase a tempo but it was not given.
9. PW-8 Ram Pravesh Tiwary is also the brother of the deceased. He deposed that accused assaulted his sister for dowry. He further deposed that
on 28.3.1995 his sister was burnt. This information was given by neighbor Saraswati Devi and Victoria. He proved the letter written in hand writing of
her sister Minia Devi and bears her signature which was marked as Ext.4. Earlier this letter was marked as Ext.X
10. PW-10 is Dr. Tulsi Mahto. He conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Meena Devi. He said death is due to burns and its
complications. He proved the post-mortem report written and signed by him which was marked as Ext.1.
11. P.W.-11 Pritam Sharma is the investigating officer of the case. He has proved the fardbeyan and formal FIR marked as Ext.2 and Ext.3
respectively. He had taken the statements of the witnesses. He inspected the place of occurrence which was a quarter of RMCH, S.Block. He
further deposed that informant gave him a letter (Ext.X). This letter was written to Nidhu Tiwary. The letter was written on dated 24.2.1995 and the
stamp was of 20.3.1995.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT:
12. Learned counsel for the appellant first and foremost submitted that it is to be noted that there is delay of three days in lodging of the FIR. The
incident allegedly took place on 28.3.1995 but FIR was lodged on 31.3.1995. Counsel for the appellants argued that for such serious allegation which
also resulted in the death of the deceased it is shocking that the FIR was lodged on 31.3.1995 and there is no good explanation for the delay. It is only
so because the family of the deceased were taking time to construct a case against the appellants.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that initially trial was held against four persons out of whom Saryu Dubey and Sunil Kumar Dubey
were acquitted on the same set of evidence and as such the same benefit may be extended to the present appellant.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no question of any harassment and cruelty for demands made by the appellant. At
the most, there was only request for money for repairs and it was not a demand. Between marriage parties some times for emergency reasons money
can only be asked from family members and close relatives and this was so in the case in hand and for such request for money a case for dowry
demand cannot be made out. Counsel for the appellant also said that there is not only the delay in lodging of the FIR but there has been delay in taking
the statement of the witnesses also. This is similar to delay in lodging of the FIR because allegations were being manufactured and cooked up. In this
regard counsel for the appellant cited a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court of Bandi Mallaiah and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in
AIR 1980 SC 1160 and State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda reported in AIR 1976 SC 2488.
15. Finally, counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant has remained in jail for one year at least out of the imposed sentence. Moreover, it
is an old case and the incident is of 1995 and they have already faced much of the vigours and rigours of trial. It is now the year 2018 and almost 25
years have passed from the date of alleged occurrence and any further punishment in this regard will be adding salt to old wounds. Therefore, period
appellant has remained in custody may be considered as period undergone. Though opposing, the appellant is convicted anyway.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:
16. Learned counsel for the state has argued that appellant Niranjan Dubey has been convicted u/s 498A IPC. He argued that enough prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution case such as PW-6 Nidhu Tiwary who is the father of the deceased, PW-8 Ram Pravesh Tiwary who
happens to be the brother of the deceased as well as PW-9 Ramashis Tiwary who is another brother of the deceased as well as the informant. In this
case deceased died in her matrimonial home otherwise under normal circumstances. The doctor PW-10 Tulsi Mahto has attributed that death was due
to burn and its complications therefore, he fully proved that the death was due to unnatural causes. Though appellant Niranjan Dubey was convicted
only u/s 498A IPC and the prosecution witnesses PW-6, PW-8 and Pw-9 have fully proved that deceased was harassed by her husband Nranjan
Dubey for money. Learned counsel for the State-APP has further argued that Ext.4 or Ext. X which is a letter written by the deceased shall be seen
in the light of evidences of the witnesses from the family who have supported the case. Thus the letter which is written by the deceased ten days
before the occurrence supports the more specific accusations and allegations that is made out in the evidence against the appellant. Therefore, on the
basis of all the evidences the conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below deserves to be sustained.
FINDINGS:
17. Having gone through the arguments of both counsels, records of the case, the evidences and in the facts and circumstances, it is seen that there is
substantial amount of evidences given by the prosecution witnesses that leads to certain conclusions. First and foremost it is seen that informant PW-9
Ramashis Tiwary has basically supported the prosecution case. He has deposed in paragraph-1 that when his sister was in his house then the
complaint regarding her in-laws that they always used to demand dowry. When he used to go to his sister’s matrimonial home then she made
same complaint. Further in para 1 he deposed that the husband of Meena had to buy an auto rickshaw and for this money was demanded. He further
deposed that they were not in a position to fulfill the demand of money. He further deposed that it was only when a son was born to his sister then
Niranjan Dubey, the husband had come and bidai of his sister was done. In paragraph 2 he deposed that even then his sister was assaulted for the
money. After eight and nine months Meena was brought back by Niranjan Dubey to his Chutia House there she had informed that her in laws used to
threaten to kill her. Deceased said that Niranjan Dubey used to threaten her. He also in paragraph no. 7 referred to Ext.X which he has deposed that
it was a letter written by his sister and which was received about ten days prior to her death in which she had referred to assaults being made. In
Paragraph-13 he has given the reason for the delay in lodging of the FIR was the advice on the part of the police to lodge FIR when his sister is able
to talk or when she dies. Therefore, from the evidence of informant PW-9 it is clear that he has fully corroborated his fardbeyan and has been even
able to explain the delay in lodging of the FIR. From the evidences so far it is apparent that the money was demanded for purchase of auto rickshaw
by the husband of the deceased. PW-8 who is Ram Pravesh Tiwary who is another brother of the deceased had also supported the prosecution case
as well as the evidence of his brother PW-9.
18. PW-6 Nidhu Tiwary father of the deceased in paragraph -1 deposed that his daughter had told him that Niranjan Dubey used to say that her father
had given less money so she would be sent away. From his evidence the role of the appellant husband or Niranjan Dubey is apparent. In paragraph
no.1 he also deposed that his son â€"in-law or appellant husband had come to his house after a period of eight months and told for bidai of his daughter
and also said to give the money. His daughter did not want to go but his son-in-law said that he would commit suicide then she was sent to her sausral.
It is apparent that it is the accused husband of the deceased who was in great need of money and was also putting pressure and by such behaviour he
must have put the deceased to tremendous mental anguish, torture and harassment also.
19. Now, regarding defence witnesses. Evidence of DW-1 is of no use for the appellant Niranjan Dubey because this evidence was given in favour of
his father Saryu Dubey who was on duty on the date of occurrence i.e. on 28.3.1995. Evidence of DW-2 and D.W.4 is also of no help to the appellant
in view of specific allegation for the demand of dowry by the prosecution witnesses PW-9, PW-8 and PW-6. Evidence of DW-3 is not reliable as
D.W. 3 said he had written letter or Ext.4 on 24.2.1995 on the saying of deceased brother Ramashish Tiwary PW-9, but the postal seal on the said
letter is dated 20.3.1995. Learned court below in the impugned judgment has made discussion in this regard at para 28 for not relying on the evidence
of D.W.-3.
20. Judgments relied on by the appellant Bandi Mallaiah (supra) and State of Orissa (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. In Bandi Mallaiah (supra) case time of giving FIR was doubtful and Hon’ble Apex Court was not satisfied about the genuineness of
the FIR. But in the case in hand delay in lodging of the FIR is satisfactorily explained on reading Para 13 of the deposition of the informant PW-9
Ramashis Tiwary.
21. Hence, the prosecution has proved the charge u/s 498A of the IPC against the appellant Niranjan Dubey. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned court below requires no interference. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.3.2003
and 6.3.2003 respectively passed by the learned court below in S.T. No. 105 of 1996 are hereby sustained and upheld. Bail bonds of the appellant is
cancelled. Learned court below is directed to take steps as per law to carry out the remaining sentence of the appellant.
22. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
