Santosh Rani Jain & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 483 Of 1987
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8/9.7.87 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. A. NO. 337 of 1985)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.87 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. A. No. 337 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8/9.7.87 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. A. NO. 337 of 1985)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.87 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. A. No. 337 of 1985)
Petitioner: Santosh Rani Jain & Anr.
Respondent: State of West Bengal
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 483 Of 1987
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8/9.7.87 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. A. NO. 337 of 1985)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.87 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. A. No. 337 of 1985)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8/9.7.87 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. A. NO. 337 of 1985)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1995
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.87 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. A. No. 337 of 1985)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 23, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. T. Sridharan, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. Tapas Chandra Ray, Senior Advocate, Mr. H.K. Puri, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava and Mr. Ujjal Banerjee, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Penal Code, 1960 –
Sec 302 read with Sec 34 – Unnatural death only after 4 months of marriage – Circumstantial evidence establishing demand of dowry and harassment by husband and mother in – law – Body of deceased thrown on pavement and after few minutes taken to hospital – Defence version of committing suicide by jumping from 11th floor – Story belied by medical evidence as all injuries not possible by fall- Also no blood found at place of dead body – Evidence of all circumstances reliable – Held That the evidence and circum-stances clearly establish it a case of homicide and death was caused intentionally and with common intention. No reason to differ with view of High Court. (Para 5).
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sec 379.
Appeal against Acquittal by High Court – Conviction of the broth-er – in – law of deceased by trial court merely on grounds that he, along with two other took the deceased to hospital in car – No other evidence or circumstance – Held that there was no reason to differ with view taken by High Court. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J. :
1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 337/85. Criminal Appeal No. 483/87 is filled by the two convicted accused and Criminal Appeal No. 411/95 is filed by the State as the third Accused was acquitted by the High Court. All the three accused were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for causing death of Neelam @ Pinky. The High Court confirmed the conviction of Santosh Rani and Virendra, mother-in-law and hus-band of Neelam respectively but acquitted Rabindra, brother-in-law of Neelam.
2. Neelam had married Virender Kumar Jain about 4 months before the date of the incident which took place on 7.9.1980. The prose-cution case was that soon after the marriage, particularly the mother-in-law and her husband started harassing and torturing her as proper amount of dowry was not paid. Initially the brother of Neelam had paid Rs. 11,000/- and after few days Rs. 11,000/- more were paid as dowry. As Chiman Lal, father-in-law of Neelam was still not satisfied with that amount the brother of Neelam gave a pay order of Rs. 22,500/- in his name. A few days prior to the incident her brother gave some golden ornaments also. All the ornaments of Neelam were taken away from her by her in-laws. It was also the prosecution case that on the day of the incident all the 3 accused mercilessly beat her and threw her dead body on the pavement outside their residential building. After some time they took the dead body to the hospital and reported to the hospital authorities that she had jumped from 11th floor of their house and had received injuries as a result of the fall.
3. As there was no direct evidence to prove who caused the death of Neelam, the prosecution led evidence to show that there was a demand for more dowry; and that she was tortured and even beaten on some occasions; that she was administered something few days prior to the date of the incident as a result of which she was required to be taken to a private hospital. The prosecution also led evidence to prove that the accused had thrown the dead body of Neelam on the pavement and after few minutes had taken it in a car to the hospital. It also relied upon the circumstance that no blood was found at the place where the dead body was seen lying. Relying upon these circumstances and the medical evidence which proved that all the injuries found on the body of Neelam could not have been caused by a fall from 11th floor of a house and were more consistent with her being given blows and her being killed in that manner, the trial court came to the conclusion that it was not a case of suicide as contended by the accused but it was a case of homicide. The trial court also held that the circumstances established by the prosecution proved beyond rea-sonable doubt that all the 3 accused had caused the death of Neelam in furtherance of their common intention. The involvement of Rabindra was believed relying upon the circumstances that he had along with the other two accused taken her to the hospital in a private car. The defence of the accused was that Neelam had committed suicide by jumping from the terrace on the 11th floor. The trial court gave good reasons for not accepting this defence and also the writing alleged to have been written by Neelam indicating that she was committing suicide as she was unhappy because of harassment and ill treatment by her in-laws. The trial court convicted all the three accused under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. The High Court after reappreciating the evidence agreed with the findings of the trial court regarding the demand of dowry, harassment and beating. The High Court held that the other in-criminating circumstances were also satisfactorily established by the prosecution. The High Court believed the medical evidence and held that the injuries found on the person of Neelam were not caused by a fall, but were caused as a result of severe beating given to her. The High Court also relied upon the circumstance that no ornaments were found on her body and no blood was found at the place where her dead body was seen lying on the pavement. The High Court therefore agreed with the findings of the trial court that it was a case of homicide and not suicide. The High Court believed involvement of the mother-in-law and husband as both of them used to harass, torture and beat her and the mother-in-law also used to say that she would soon get her son married again. The High Court did not agree with the finding of the trial court that Rabindra was also involved in committing those offenc-es.
5. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, learned counsel for the appellants took through the relevant evidence in order to show that all the circumstances were not satisfactorily established. He was, however, not able to point out how the evidence establishing the incriminating circumstances was not reliable. Both the courts below have believed the witnesses and on reappreciation, we find that the evidence led by the prosecu-tion was reliable and sufficient to establish all the circum-stances which have been relied upon. The medical evidence very clearly establishes that it was not a case of suicide and death of Neelam was homicidal. We also agree with the High Court that death of Neelam was caused in furtherance of the common intention of the husband and the mother-in-law. We see no good reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court.
6. For the reasons stated above, both these appeals are dis-missed.
7. The two appellants were released on bail. Their bail is cancelled and they are directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.
1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 337/85. Criminal Appeal No. 483/87 is filled by the two convicted accused and Criminal Appeal No. 411/95 is filed by the State as the third Accused was acquitted by the High Court. All the three accused were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for causing death of Neelam @ Pinky. The High Court confirmed the conviction of Santosh Rani and Virendra, mother-in-law and hus-band of Neelam respectively but acquitted Rabindra, brother-in-law of Neelam.
2. Neelam had married Virender Kumar Jain about 4 months before the date of the incident which took place on 7.9.1980. The prose-cution case was that soon after the marriage, particularly the mother-in-law and her husband started harassing and torturing her as proper amount of dowry was not paid. Initially the brother of Neelam had paid Rs. 11,000/- and after few days Rs. 11,000/- more were paid as dowry. As Chiman Lal, father-in-law of Neelam was still not satisfied with that amount the brother of Neelam gave a pay order of Rs. 22,500/- in his name. A few days prior to the incident her brother gave some golden ornaments also. All the ornaments of Neelam were taken away from her by her in-laws. It was also the prosecution case that on the day of the incident all the 3 accused mercilessly beat her and threw her dead body on the pavement outside their residential building. After some time they took the dead body to the hospital and reported to the hospital authorities that she had jumped from 11th floor of their house and had received injuries as a result of the fall.
3. As there was no direct evidence to prove who caused the death of Neelam, the prosecution led evidence to show that there was a demand for more dowry; and that she was tortured and even beaten on some occasions; that she was administered something few days prior to the date of the incident as a result of which she was required to be taken to a private hospital. The prosecution also led evidence to prove that the accused had thrown the dead body of Neelam on the pavement and after few minutes had taken it in a car to the hospital. It also relied upon the circumstance that no blood was found at the place where the dead body was seen lying. Relying upon these circumstances and the medical evidence which proved that all the injuries found on the body of Neelam could not have been caused by a fall from 11th floor of a house and were more consistent with her being given blows and her being killed in that manner, the trial court came to the conclusion that it was not a case of suicide as contended by the accused but it was a case of homicide. The trial court also held that the circumstances established by the prosecution proved beyond rea-sonable doubt that all the 3 accused had caused the death of Neelam in furtherance of their common intention. The involvement of Rabindra was believed relying upon the circumstances that he had along with the other two accused taken her to the hospital in a private car. The defence of the accused was that Neelam had committed suicide by jumping from the terrace on the 11th floor. The trial court gave good reasons for not accepting this defence and also the writing alleged to have been written by Neelam indicating that she was committing suicide as she was unhappy because of harassment and ill treatment by her in-laws. The trial court convicted all the three accused under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. The High Court after reappreciating the evidence agreed with the findings of the trial court regarding the demand of dowry, harassment and beating. The High Court held that the other in-criminating circumstances were also satisfactorily established by the prosecution. The High Court believed the medical evidence and held that the injuries found on the person of Neelam were not caused by a fall, but were caused as a result of severe beating given to her. The High Court also relied upon the circumstance that no ornaments were found on her body and no blood was found at the place where her dead body was seen lying on the pavement. The High Court therefore agreed with the findings of the trial court that it was a case of homicide and not suicide. The High Court believed involvement of the mother-in-law and husband as both of them used to harass, torture and beat her and the mother-in-law also used to say that she would soon get her son married again. The High Court did not agree with the finding of the trial court that Rabindra was also involved in committing those offenc-es.
5. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, learned counsel for the appellants took through the relevant evidence in order to show that all the circumstances were not satisfactorily established. He was, however, not able to point out how the evidence establishing the incriminating circumstances was not reliable. Both the courts below have believed the witnesses and on reappreciation, we find that the evidence led by the prosecu-tion was reliable and sufficient to establish all the circum-stances which have been relied upon. The medical evidence very clearly establishes that it was not a case of suicide and death of Neelam was homicidal. We also agree with the High Court that death of Neelam was caused in furtherance of the common intention of the husband and the mother-in-law. We see no good reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court.
6. For the reasons stated above, both these appeals are dis-missed.
7. The two appellants were released on bail. Their bail is cancelled and they are directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.
