NAGENDRA THAKUR, KAMAL THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary Appellant Nagendra Thakur was put on trial by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No. III, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 535 of 2004/ 62 of 2004 by framing charges under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and by judgment dated 5th of December 2006 was found guilty of committing the two offences. After being heard on sentence on 6.12.2006, the Appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years on account of being found guilty of committing offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for his conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant has come up before this Court to appeal against the above said judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

(2.) I have heard Sri Devendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the State. This appeal has to succeed on mere consideration of the fact that in spite of there being the allegation that the lady was killed by being administered some poisonous substance, the doctor holding postmortem examination did not find any signs of injuries either externally or internally to justify that allegation. It was expected that if poison was administered forcibly to the lady then under normal circumstances or even in circumstances which could be unnatural appearing due to use of force, some injuries on the external parts of the dead body could have appeared. Not only that, on account of non-finding of any injury either on the external or internal parts of the dead body, the doctor was preserving the viscera and it appears being transmitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, but No. report was received during the whole of the trial, thus, leaving a big void in the prosecution case. It hardly requires to be noted that if the prosecution alleged commission of an offence by administering poison to the deceased or any injured then the charge on that account could not be sustained in absence of any report of the expert that death was caused by administration of poison.

(3.) The Appellant who is the husband was not denying that the wife died on the day and at the time as stated by the prosecution. But he had a defence and that was that his wife was an epilectic person and she had fits of epilepsy as a result of which she died.