SURESH MUNDA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Cr. Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 451/96 on 6th May, 1999 and 7th May, 1999 respectively whereby and whereunder the sole appellant Suresh Munda was convicted under Section 304B I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years therein.

(2.) THE prosecution story is in a narrow compass. The informant Bechan Pahan by presenting a written report before Mandu (Kuju) Police alleged that in June, 1994 his daughter Pairo Devi (since deceased) was married to the appellant Suresh Munda and after the marriage the appellant had been assaulting and extended torture to his wife for dowry and other reasons. On 22.7.96 the informant was communicated that his daughter Pairo Devi was seriously ill in her matrimonial home. When the informant went there with son and other witnesses, he found the dead body of his daughter Pairo Devi at her matrimonial home. On query the appellant narrated that Pairo Devi had committed suicide by taking poison. On the basis of such written report presented by the informant, Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 234/96 was registered for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. against the appellant and after investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge -sheet against him.

(3.) ADVANCING his argument, learned Counsel submitted that the appellant is innocent and there is no eye witness of the occurrence to substantiate the charge of culpable homicide (dowry death) against him. The prosecution has not been able to prove any demand of dowry being made by the appellant from the informant or others or that he had extended atrocities or cruelty in relation to such demand soon before the unnatural death of Pairo Devi. It would be relevant to mention, the learned Counsel advancing his argument, submitted that P.W. 3 in his statement before the Court has clearly stated that there was no custom in their family or in their society of dowry. P.W. 2 mother of the deceased, P.W. 3 uncle of the deceased, P.W. 4 cousin of the deceased, P.W. 5 co -villager, P.W. 6 brother of the deceased and P.W. 7 cousin of the deceased were consistent before the Trial Court that when they visited the matrimonial home of Pairo Devi at village Sugia they found her dead body but none of the said witnesses deposed in the Court that the tongue of the deceased was protruded, eyes were prominent and open, face swollen, lips blue, mouth open and that blood was coming out from her both nostrils and in absence of such evidence of the witnesses, the finding of the Doctor who held postmortem examination reporting the appearance of the dead body, in the manner stated above, does not inspire confidence for relying upon his postmortem report. It can well be inferred that in order to make out a case of strangulation, the doctor prepared false postmortem report though the appellant since outset had been strongly contending that his wife Pairo Devi had committed suicide for not giving birth to any child.