Judgement - Sections 498A & 201 - Cruelty - Disappearance of Evidence

Court: Patna High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Anjana Prakash

Lal Mohan Singh Vs. State Of Bihar On 6 December 2013

Law Point:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498A, 201 — Cruelty — Disappearance of evidence — Testimony of DWs reliable — No positive evidence with regard to cruelty meted out to deceased in the period she was residing in her matrimonial house — Paucity of evidence in support of prosecution case — Unsafe to rely on vague statement given by informant — Order of conviction and sentence set aside.

JUDGEMENT

1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of which a further imprisonment for three months and under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, sen­tenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 in default of which further two months’ imprisonment, by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 1, Fast Track, Bhabua, by a Judgment and Order of conviction dated 7/8.3.2002 in Sessions Trial Nos. 109 of 1991/220 of 2001.

2. The case of the informant Jaibodhan Singh is that his daughter Nirmala Kumari was married with the present ap­pellant on 29.4.1990 but she was tortured for ends of dowry and, thereafter, burnt to death by her in-laws. The appellant along with his family members were charged for the offence under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code but even while all the accused persons were acquitted under Section 304B, Indian Penal Code since the death of the daughter of the informant could not be es­tablished, the sole appellant was convicted as mentioned above.

3. PW 7 Jaibodhan Singh is the in­formant who stated that when he went along with PW 8 and PW 9 to the village of his daughter, they learnt that his daughter had been burnt for reasons of dowry. How­ever, they did not disclose the source of such knowledge.

4. PW 3 Awadhe Bihari Singh, PW 4 Chintamani Singh, PW 5 Nathuni Singh and PW 10 Vidya Sagar Singh are residents of the village of the appellant, have been tendered by the Prosecution.

5. PW 6 Anirudh Singh is the Chowkidar. He has stated that he heard a rumour that the appellant had burnt his wife at which he went to his house and learnt that the accused persons had taken the deceased to Kudra Hospital.

6. It appears that the defence also examined some witnesses and exhibited some documents to show that in fact the deceased had died in course of treatment while she was taken to Banaras. DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4 are also on the same point.

7. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that there is no posi­tive evidence also with regard to any cruelty having been meted out to the deceased in the period that she was residing in her matrimonial home.

8. In view of such paucity of evidence, in support of the prosecution case, it would be unsafe to rely solely on the vague statement given by the informant.

9. Hence, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 7/8.3.2002 passed against the appellant in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 1991/220 of 2001 by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 1, Fast Track, Bhabua is, hereby, set aside.

10. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us