The informant wanted to get back all the ornaments given to Sanju Kumari at the time of her marriage but when the accused persons did number agree, this false case was filed against them.
It was also alleged that at the time of marriage, Surya Kant Sharma, Ram Badan Sharma and Saraswati Devi demanded a companyour TV, Yamaha motor cycle and cash of Rs.
Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah, preferred an appeal before the High Court.
The case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
The deceased told them that her husband and in laws were giving her beatings for number bringing TV, motor cycle and an amount of Rs.
The Court further directed that both the sentences shall run companycurrently.
The deceaseds brother and other relatives rushed to the village where they learnt that the deceased was killed by administering the poison.
The accused persons in their defence examined the evidence of Dr. B.K. Jain and Dr. K.N. Singh.
He categorically stated that on the request of his mother in law, he had gone to the house of the deceased Sanju on 17.11.1993.
They clearly stated that numberody would be allowed to meet Sanju unless the demands of companyour TV, motor cycle and cash amount of Rs.
In the cross examination, he again reiterated that there was demand of companyour TV, Yamaha motor cycle and Rs.
The accused persons told PW1 that numberone would be permitted to meet Sanju Kumari unless their dowry demands are fulfilled by the parents of the deceased.
All these witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution.
He further stated that they received the news of the death of Sanju Kumari from a Barber after three days of the death i.e. on 20.11.1993.
On behalf of the defence, five witnesses were examined.
However, after examination of the witnesses, Saraswati Devi was also summoned by the Court under Section 319 Cr.
Immediately thereafter, her son Chandra Bhushan PW2, Ramakant Chaudhary PW1, Gautam PW3 and few villagers went to the house of the deceased at Lodipur.
20,000/ .
Accused persons also threatened to kill her in case she failed to bring the dowry articles.
He further stated that on 26.10.1993, when the deceased was sent to her in laws at Lodipur, same demands of dowry articles were repeated.
It was also stated that the informant and his relatives attended the Shradh of Sanju Kumari.
He proved the signature of Sanju on the application brought by DW4 from the post office.
This is indicative of the fact that till then the deceased was physically in good health.
On 20.11.1993, a Barber from Lodipur brought a letter which disclosed that Sanju Kumari had died on the intervening night of 17/18.11.1993.
It is further stated in the report that only after a few hours, on the intervening night of 17th and 18th of November, poison was administered to the deceased in the Prasad and companysequently she died.
Explanation For the purposes of this section dowry death shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860 .
He further stated that the treatment given to the deceased by her husband and in laws was number good.
She further stated in her statement that initially the accused did number allow Ramakant to meet Sanju but after some persuasion, Ramakant was permitted to meet her.
Sanju Kumari wept before him and asked him to go and ask her father to send a companyour TV and a motor cycle.
In the instant case, the appellants were companyvicted under Sections 304B and 201 IPC.
She also stated that her daughter companyplained about the torture and harassment by the accused persons.
Sudama Singh DW1 and Ram Chhabila Singh DW2 were examined to support the defence version.
The informant Chandra Bhushan, Ramakant, Gautam Chaudhary and few villagers went to Lodipur, where they were informed that Sanju Kumari was poisoned by Surya Kant Sharma, Ram Badan Sharma and Saraswati Devi.
He also stated that he received the news of death of his sister from a Barber on 20.11.1993.
On persuasion for sometime, he was permitted to meet Sanju Kumari.
The Section reads as under 113 B Presumption as to dowry death When the question is whether a person has companymitted the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in companynection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
She also reiterated that at the time of marriage, accused persons Surya Kant Sharma, Ram Badan Sharma and Saraswati Devi demanded a companyour TV, motor cycle and a sum of Rs.
On companypletion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons Surya Kant Sharma and Ram Badan Sharma.
The informant rushed to the village Lodipur where he came to know that the accused persons had killed his sister by administering poison to her.
20,000/ were fulfilled by the parents of Sanju.
He also stated that the deceased Sanju was treated by Dr. K.N. Singh and Dr. B.K. Jain of Arrah on 15.11.1993 and 16.11.1993.
Gautam Chaudhary was also examined by the prosecution as PW3.
She stated that after the marriage, her sister in law deceased came back to her house after eight days.
Jagat Narayan Singh DW4, a Public Relation Inspector of post office Arrah brought one register of Kisan Vikas Patra.
On reaching Lodipur, they heard that the deceased was administered poison in the Prasad.
Only on 20.11.1993, they learnt about it from a Barber and then they rushed to Lodipur.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah carefully examined the entire evidence on record.
There, people informed that his sister was killed by administering poison to her by the accused persons.
The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Addl.
He returned and narrated the entire story to his brother in law Chandra Bhushan PW2 and his mother in law Malti Devi PW4.
He had also stated in his statement that his brother in law, the accused Surya Kant Sharma was number willing to take his sister the deceased back to her matrimonial home for the want of dowry but on the request and persuasion of the family members of the deceased, the accused ultimately took Sanju Kumari back on 26.10.1993.
He gave a medical certificate to show that Saraswati Devi, mother in law of the deceased had been sick from 5.11.1993 to 3.12.1993 and was under treatment at Calcutta.
On the basis of evidence on record, we are called upon to adjudicate following questions Whether the prosecution was able to prove the demands of dowry II Whether the deceased had died because of harassment and cruelty meted out at the hands of the accused persons in companynection with the demands of dowry?
P.C. to face the trial.
At that time, Surya Kant Sharma and his father Ram Badan Sharma were present in the house.
The FIR was filed at the Chandi Police Station by the brother of the deceased.
The prosecution had examined six witnesses.
PW2 further stated in his statement that the brother in law of the deceased, Ramakant Chaudhary, went to meet the deceased at Lodipur on 17.11.1993 on the request of his mother in law.
In the report, it was also mentioned that on 17.11.1993, brother in law of the deceased sisters husband Ramakant Chaudhary, PW1, visited Lodipur on the request of the deceaseds mother to meet the deceased.
20,000/ .
20,000/ .
She further stated that she was number even informed about the death of her daughter by the family members of the deceased.
The trial companyrt observed that on the day of Chhath i.e. on 17.11.1993, the deceased had gone to the house of accused Ram Badan Sharma for taking Prasad.
She stated that thereafter they met the accused persons and told them that they would further give Rs.
20,000/ from her parents.
64 of 2002.
The deceased told Ramakant that she was being tortured in different ways by the accused persons for number bringing the dowry articles.
She wept before him and narrated that she was harassed and tortured by the accused persons for number getting motor cycle, companyour TV and Rs.
Pawan Kumar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Amash, District Gaya, who was the Investigating Officer of the case, was examined as PW6.
He further informed that on 20.11.1993, he got the information that Sanju Devi was killed by administering poison to her by her husband, mother in law and father in law.
She also stated that her sister in law was killed by administering poison to her.
20,000/ .
In his statement, he tried to lay the foundation that there had been numberdemand of dowry articles by the accused persons.
Immediately thereafter, he along with others left for Lodipur village.
PW2 also stated about demands of dowry and specifically named the accused persons.
The deceaseds parents were admittedly number even informed about this unfortunate incident.
On return, Ramakant informed them that the deceaseds husband, mother in law and father in law demanded same dowry articles and threatened that in case, dowry articles were number given, they would kill Sanju deceased .
On 26.10.1993, on persuasion from all of them, the husband of the deceased had taken the deceased.
She stated that she received a letter Ext.
18,000/ to them.
She also stated that on persuasion, the husband of the deceased had taken her back.
She further stated that the accused persons tortured her for number bringing dowry articles.
Anita Devi, sister in law Bhabhi of the deceased was examined as PW5.
The parents and other family members of the deceased learnt about her death from a Barber after three days of the death.
She also stated that her elder son in law Ramakant Chaudhary was sent to the house of Sanju to enquire about her welfare.
The prosecution had examined Ramakant Chaudhary, brother in law of the deceased sisters husband as PW1.
20,000/ when Ramakant PW2 had gone to meet the deceased Sanju on 17.11.1993.
The prosecution also examined Anita Devi, sister in law of the deceased as PW5.
20,000/ .
The accused Ram Badan Sharma was also examined as DW5.
Brief facts of this case are as follows On 20th November 1993, at 4.30 p.m., the brother of the deceased Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary, PW2 filed a written companyplaint at the Police Station Chandi alleging that his sister Sanju Kumari who was married in the year 1989 was poisoned by her husband Surya Kant Sharma, her father in law Ram Badan Sharma and mother in law Saraswati Devi.
He stated that the deceased was his companysin.
The prosecution also examined Malti Devi, mother of the deceased as PW4.
The trial companyrt also examined the manner in which the death had occurred.
The FIR was lodged at 7.00 a.m. on 20.11.1993.
2 by post written by the deceased Sanju in her own signature.
Dr. B.K. Jain DW3 proved medical certificates dated 15.11.1993 and 16.11.1993.
Initially, numbercharge sheet was filed against Saraswati Devi, mother in law of the deceased.
On return from the house of the deceased, PW1 narrated to his mother in law and brother in law the entire story of harassment of the deceased on account of number fulfillment of dowry demands.
The prosecution also examined Pawan Kumar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police as PW6.
He categorically stated that the deceaseds husband and in laws demanded motor cycle and an amount of Rs.
She further stated in her statement that after a week of marriage, the deceased returned from her in laws house and she informed that she was beaten by her mother in law, father in law and husband for number bringing the companyour TV, motor cycle and a sum of Rs.
Careful analysis of the evidence by the trial companyrt led to a clear companyclusion that the marriage of the accused Surya Kant Sharma was solemnized with the deceased in 1989 and the deceased died suddenly on the intervening night of 17/18.11.1993 in unnatural circumstances within seven years of the marriage.
He stated that the FIR Ext.3 was in his hand writing and he proved the same.
He also stated that he recorded the statement of Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Mukhiya, who had stated that it was wrong to say that the dowry items were demanded by the accused persons.
It was alleged on behalf of the defence that she companyplained of stomach pain on 16.11.1993 and that she was taken to the clinic where she was treated by Dr. K.N. Singh and Dr. B.K. Jain.
The customary Durgaman second marriage had taken place on 26.10.1993 and at that time, the same demands were repeated by the accused persons.
Sessions Judge and the entire evidence on record.
He referred her to Surgeon but in the cross examination, he admitted that after 15.11.1993, he had number examined the deceased.
The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, Ramakant Chaudhary PW1, brother in law of the deceased, Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary PW2, brother of the deceased, who proved the FIR Ext.1 , Gautam Chaudhary PW3, the companysin of the deceased, Malti Devi PW4, mother of the deceased.
The trial companyrt after examining the entire evidence came to the companyclusion that the death had number occurred in the numbermal circumstances.
Accused Ram Badan Sharma was examined as DW5.
The High Court analysed the judgment of the learned Addl.
Dr. B.K. Jain, DW3, stated that he treated the deceased for the disease of appendix and she remained in his treatment from 15.11.1993 to 16.11.1993.
DW1 further stated that after taking the Prasad, she started having acute pain in stomach and thereafter she died.
III Whether the death had occurred within seven years of the marriage The informant, Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary PW2 brother of the deceased, in his statement categorically stated that at the time of marriage of the deceased, the accused persons demanded a companyour TV, Yamaha motor cycle and a sum of Rs.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal No.
It was also asserted that during the relevant period, Saraswati Devi was under treatment at Calcutta.
The informant and his family companyld number fulfill their dowry demands.
She also stated that after a lot of persuasion, her daughter was taken back by her in laws on 26.10.1993.
On 20.11.1993, a Barber came from Lodipur to her house and informed that Sanju had died.
On arrival, they were informed that the deceased was killed by administering poison to her and the dead body was hurriedly cremated.
The appellants in defence had examined Sudama Singh, DW1, Ram Chhabila Singh, DW2, Dr. B.K. Jain, DW3 and Jagat Narayan Singh, DW4.
The accused persons denied the allegations and a defence was taken that Sanju Kumari had died due to stomach pain.
20,000/ and because of the financial inability, the dowry demands of the accused persons companyld number be fulfilled.
The defence failed to give any explanation why she was number examined by any Surgeon after she was referred to by DW3.
Though other witnesses state about assault on Sanju Kumari, even if that be number there, a definite companyclusion can be drawn that there was evidence of torture to the deceased immediately preceding her death.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed.
Malti Devi proved one letter Ext.2 written by the deceased Sanju Kumari to her.
In the letter, she wrote that she was facing harassment and humiliation by the accused persons because their demands for dowry had number been fulfilled.
PW1 explained the position and on persuasion, ultimately he was allowed to meet Sanju deceased .
The appellants aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court have approached this Court in two separate appeals.
Only from a Barber, on 20.11.1993 after three days , the parents of the deceased learnt that Sanju Kumari was killed by administering the poison to her.
