NIMAY SAH vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.211 of 2011 N IMAY  S AH                             … A PPELLANT V ERSUS TATE OF HARKHAND ESPONDENT S    J           … R J U D G M E N T   N.V. R AMANA , J.     This   appeal   arises   out   of   the   impugned   judgment 1. dated 11.02.2010, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 176 of 2001, whereby the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trial Case No.   235/1998;   45/1998   dated   09.05.2001   and   upheld   the conviction of the appellant­accused under Section 498­A read with Section 34 IPC along with other accused persons.  2.   The present appeal pertains to Nimay Sah, accused Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2020.12.02 16:25:07 IST Reason: no.3, who is the elder brother of the deceased’s husband, Gora 1 Sah,   accused   no.1.   The   present   appellant­accused   has suffered   conviction   along   with   accused   no.1,   Gora   Sah, husband of the deceased and accused no.2, Nitai Sah, father­ in­law of the deceased. 3.   The   deceased,   Asha   Kumari   had   been   married   to accused   no.1,   Gora   Sah,   and   had   been   living   in   her matrimonial   home.   As   per   the   prosecution   story,   she   was harassed for demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/­ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by the accused persons. This demand was originally   made   to   her   father,   Devendra   Sah   (P.W.10),   the complainant, at the time of her  vidai  ceremony. Owing to her complaints of harassment, her father, Devendra Sah (P.W.10), went   to   her   matrimonial   home   to   pacify   her   in­laws   and assured them of payment of the said amount. Eventually when the harassment did not stop, the complainant sent his son, Munna Sah (P.W.8), to the deceased’s matrimonial home who brought her back to her parental home.  4.   Accused no.1, Gora Sah, husband of the deceased, went   to   deceased’s   parental   home   on   18.02.1998.   On   the fateful   day,   i.e. ,   20.02.1998,   he   took   the   deceased   for   a 2 morning   walk.   Having   come   back   alone   after   an   hour,   he hurriedly   packed   his   belongings   to   leave.   When   confronted about   the   whereabouts   of   the   deceased,   he   said   that   the deceased was attending the call of nature and would be back soon. He left thereafter. When the deceased did not return after an hour, the complainant started searching for her and she   was   ultimately   found   dead,   near   the   canal   with strangulation   marks   on   her   neck.   An   FIR   was   registered against the accused persons under Section 304­B read with Section 109 IPC.  After the completion of investigation, charge­ sheet was presented in the court.  5.   The accused persons were charged under Section 498­ A   read   with   Section   34   IPC   and   Section   304­B   read   with Section 34 IPC. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, denied all the evidence tendered by the prosecution, claimed false implication and pleaded innocence.  6.   By the judgment and order dated 09.05.2001, the trial court,   relying   upon   the   prosecution   version,   convicted   the accused persons as under: 

3

7.   Aggrieved by the abovementioned order of conviction and sentence, the accused persons appealed before the High Court. The High Court on analysis of evidence found it to be consistent and corroborative, thereby, confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court as well as the sentence  vide  the impugned order.  8.   Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court wherein the conviction and sentence of all the accused persons   has   been   confirmed,   accused   no.3,   Nimay   Sah, brother of the deceased’s husband, has preferred this appeal.  9.   The   learned   counsel   on   behalf   of   the   appellant­ accused has submitted that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution story. It was contended that the   prosecution   story   comprises   of   vague   allegations, unsubstantiated   by   evidence.   The   entire   family   of   accused 4 no.1, Gora Sah, husband of the deceased, has been roped in this   case.   Thus,   the   conviction   of   the   appellant­accused cannot be sustained.  On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on 10. behalf of the respondent­State stressed the fact of concurrent conviction and argued that there existed sufficient evidence to prove the culpability of the appellant­accused. Heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   through 11. Video Conferencing and perused the record.  12. As per the prosecution story, the role of the appellant­ accused is limited to the demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/­ at the time of  vidai  ceremony, and subsequently, harassment on non­payment of the same. The High Court has relied upon the testimonies of Shyam Sunder Sah (P.W.7), Munna Sah (P.W.8), Champa Devi (P.W.9) and Devendra Sah (P.W.10) to uphold the factum of harassment for dowry. 13. On perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses, we find that, Devendra Sah (P.W.10) names the appellant­accused to have been troubling the deceased for demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/­. However, in his deposition, the appellant­accused is 5 named in the same breath along with other accused persons and their family members. Apart from this witness, Shyam Sunder Sah (P.W.7), Munna Sah (P.W.8) and Champa Devi (P.W.9) depose that the deceased was being troubled at her matrimonial home, without particularly naming the appellant­ accused, Nimay Sah.  14. It   ought   to   be   noted   that   apart   from   these   vague allegations,   no   specific   instance   of   hostile   attitude   or persistent demands of dowry have been pointed out by any of these witnesses. Further, Shyam Sunder Sah (P.W.7), brother of the deceased, has admitted in his cross­examination that the deceased used to write him letters from her matrimonial place, and that, none of the letters mention any harassment on account of demand of dowry.  All other independent witnesses have turned hostile 15. and have not supported the prosecution story. In fact, even Panchanan   Sah   (P.W.2)   who   is   the   paternal   uncle   of   the deceased and a witness named in the FIR, has not supported the prosecution story.  Thus, on consideration of the oral testimonies of the 16. 6 witnesses, the ingredients of Section 498­A IPC have not been proved against the appellant­accused by the prosecution at the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, there is nothing on record to convict the appellant­accused for the charge under Section 498­A IPC.  17. In   light   of   the   above,   we   are   of   the   view   that   the conviction   of   the   appellant­accused   cannot   be   sustained. Accordingly,   the   judgment   and   order   dated   11.02.2010, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 176 of 2001 is hereby  set aside and  the appellant­accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. By order dated 17.09.2010, this Court had enlarged the appellant­accused on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. 18. The   appeal   is   accordingly   allowed   in   the aforementioned terms. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. ……………………………..J. ( AMANA ) N. V. R ……………………………..J. ( URYA ANT ) S  K EW ELHI N  D , ECEMBER D   2, 2020. 7