BALRAM PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application at the instance of the informant-petitioner, is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.12.1991 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardagga.

(2.) BEFORE appreciating the points canvass by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to portray the background of the case. Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of the daughter of the informant namely, Kiran Devi. The opposite party No. 2 was charged under Section 302 simplicitor. The prosecution case in nutshell is that Kiran was married to the petitioner No. 1 in 1977. As even after 5 to 6 years of her marriage no child was born, opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 used to threat that opposite party No. 2 would be given a second marriage and Kiran would be killed. However, Kiran was examined by the doctor and subsequently gave birth to two sons. She was brought to her inlaws family in the year 1988 where she was residing since then. Kiran was very often assaulted by her inlaws and husband and there was a demand of dowry. However, Kiran could not fulfil their demand of dowry as she could not collect it from her father. On 31.10.1988 at about 10 A.M. the opposite party No. 1 informed the petitioner that his daughter died after falling into the well. The informant went to the house of her inlaws where he found the dead-body of his daughter was lying near a well. He came back and on 16.1.1989 when he went to the house of his son-in-law to see the second son of his daughter then the neighbourers informed him that on the night preceding the morning of occurrence all the opposite parties had badly assaulted Kiran and were threatened to kill. On getting this information the petitioner suspected some foul-play and felt that his daughter did not meet with an accidental death but accused persons had pushed her into the well in order to kill her. He filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge, Lohardagga Police Station and a case was registered under Sections 498A, 302 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code, The charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance, the trial was commenced. The learned court below, after appropriating the evidence on record, came to finding that there was no legal evidence to prove the guilt against the accused persons and acquitted all of them.

(3.) MR . D.N. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that the observation of the court below in paragraph 8 of the judgment is nothing but an opinion rather than a finding which cannot be basis for conviction. He further submits that initially the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 498A, 302 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code but charge was framed only under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which goes to show that while framing of charge the trial court was satisfied from the evidence on record that no case was made out against the accused persons for an offence under Section 498A. According to Mr. Sinha, the opinion of the doctor was that the death might be homicide, suicide or accidental and the court below having found that there was no legal evidence to substantiate the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, the story of homicide has to be disbelieved. There is no evidence, it is contended, to show that Kiran committed suicide and as such, a case of suicide cannot be held to be a reason for her death. Eliminating these two possibilities, Mr. Sinha continues, the opinion of doctor that the death might be due to accident cannot be ruled out.