Category Archives: Blog

The petitioners apprehended arrest under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, “Dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by any bodily injury within seven years of her marriage by her husband or any relative of her husband”, Section 120(B), “Punishment of criminal conspiracy”, Section 34 IPC, “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” The petition is in connection with Siwan Muffasil (Mahadeva OP) [PS Case No. 330 of 2020] dated 16.07.2020.

In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 17^th of September  2021 in the case of Ramnath Sah and others Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No.37701 of 2020] Mr Abdul Mannan Khan represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Ms Veena Kumari Jaiswal represented the State of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr Harendra Prasad,  represented as the advocate for the informant, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.

The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, elder brother of the husband and sister, respectively, of the husband of the deceased were accused of murdering the deceased (daughter-in-law) as she did not meet their dowry demand.

The counsel representing the petitioner held that the allegations made in the FIR are falsely implicated and when the couple were married for three years there was no sign of any complaint before any authority concerning dowry demand or maltreatment and assault. The counsel further stated that the deceased died due to committing suicide and according to the post-mortem report the doctor have discovered a mark of rope around her neck and mentioned that the account of death was asphyxia due to hanging and looks like suicidal. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan dated 21.09.2020 in Anticipatory Bail Petition [No. 1490 of 2020], rejected anticipatory bail for the petitioners. The counsel held that since there is no other mark on the body the petitioner is not responsible for the same as it was her issue, the husband of the deceased is already in custody. The petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. The counsel submitted an affidavit where the informant has compromised the matter and stated that there was neither any demand earlier for dowry nor was, she killed by the petitioners.

The additional public prosecutor held that the allegations are precise and the petitioners must be held accountable for demanding dowry and killing the deceased. The counsel representing the informant held that this case was nothing but murder and the petitioners were party to the same. The counsel held that he had not been instructed by the informant regarding compromise to this case before the court.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court because of the finding in the post-mortem where it has been stated that the death was due to asphyxia by hanging and it appeared to be a case of suicide and also that an affidavit by the informant has been filed before the Court concerning compromising the mater and stating that the petitioners have not committed any offence as also the petitioners not having any other criminal antecedent, therefore the petitioners, who are in-laws of the deceased, are not responsible for such death, and the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.

The Honourable Court concluded that “the petitioners will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Siwan Muffasil [PS Case No. 330 of 2020], subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.1973 (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, and (ii) that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to cooperate shall lead to the cancellation of their bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham 

The appellant was convicted under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”), this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE JUSTICE  SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,  in the matter   Sk. Dilks Alam @ Sk. Dilkhush Alam Vs. The State of West Bengal[C.R.A. No.457 of 2019].

According to the Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no credible evidence, sufficient to make out a plausible case against the appellant, even to attract the presumption under Section 29 and/or Section 30 of the POCSO Act. He also mentioned that the complainant allegedly returned within half an hour of leaving the victim. But, a journey from the place of occurrence to the residence of the victim’s parents takes about 45 minutes each way on a bus.

Although CCTV camera footage was available, the same was not seized and was not exhibited or sent for forensic examination by the police authorities also, None of the employees of the Bank, where the incident allegedly occurred, was also produced as witnesses for the prosecution. The entire evidence was based on hearsay. It was contended, by placing reliance on the answer of the accused to question no.19 put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Meanwhile  Learned counsel for the State, controverting the submissions of the appellant, argues that the statement of the victim girl, which was corroborated by other pieces of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is, by itself, sufficient to convict the accused. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, it was clear that the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not only hearsay but the knowledge of the alleged incident was derived by all such witnesses from the complainant Raju Mal. Thus, the source of the information of all the witnesses was the complainant himself.

The patent discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. At least three of the prosecution witnesses mentioned a lady being present at the spot of occurrence at the relevant time, who was never produced as a witness. A formal complaint and First Information Report (FIR) was lodged as late as about 4:25 p.m. on the said date.

The complainant, allegedly the maternal uncle of the victim, admitted in his cross-examination that he does not have a sister. To explain away such admission, a case was sought to be made out that the complainant is a distant relative of the victim. The fact that almost all the witnesses were from the same village as the complainant, including some of his relatives, being produced as prosecution witnesses is peculiar, more so, since the source of information of all of them regarding the alleged incident was none other than the complainant himself.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it believed that – “The impugned judgment and order of conviction were bad in law as well as on facts and ought to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The appellant is hereby acquitted honourably and shall be discharged from custody, if at present in incarceration, and stands discharged of all conditions and bail bonds if furnished by the appellant for obtaining bail at any point of time”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira B S 

 

Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 clearly mandate the court to follow the said yardsticks in ascertaining the age of the victim, which was not done in the present case, this was held  in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA ,  in the matter C.R.A. No.209 of 2017 Sushanka Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal [C.R.A. No.209 of 2017] .

The Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution did not produce any document in evidence to prove that the victim was a minor at the relevant date and also mentioned that the trial Court relied on an Admit Card, which was never exhibited at all. With the help of Mahadeo S/o KerbaMaske Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported at (2013) [4 SCC 637] case,  learned 2 counsel submits that the Supreme Court categorically held that the yardsticks for ascertaining the age of a juvenile can also be followed by courts for the purpose of ascertaining the age of a victim.

They also referred to the case Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported at (2013) [7 SCC 263], in support of the same proposition, that the ascertainment of age, both of a child in conflict with law and who is a victim of crime, should be on the yardsticks based on the Rules, in particular, Rule 12 thereof.And also mentioned that ,Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the JJ Act’) clearly mandate the court to follow the said yardsticks in ascertaining the age of the victim, which was not done in the present case.

The information collected from the FIR stated that , the alleged date of occurrence has been mentioned as between October 31, 2015 and November 9, 2015 and the information received by thepolice station was on November 10, 2015. Learned counsel next contends that, admittedly, there was an affair going on between the accused, who was aged about 20 years, and the victim, who was allegedly 17 years 5 months old at the relevant point of time, as corroborated both by PW1 and PW2.

It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that PW13, who accompanied the victim to the hospital for her medical examination on November 10, 2015, did not state anything in her evidence regarding having collected any vaginal swab. So, it is evident that the evidence of the doctor, the medical report and the evidence of PW13, the escort of the victim of the hospital, militate against each other.

Learned counsel appearing for the State contends that the Trial Judge, in the impugned judgment, clearly indicated that the Admit Card of the victim was shown to the Court, which reflected that the date of birth of the victim was May 30, 1998. Hence, a presumption under Section 29 can easily be attached to the accused, shifting the burden on the accused to prove his innocence.  Also submits that there is sufficient corroborative evidence on record to prove the prosecution case.

Hence, since the age of the victim was, in any event,above 17 years at the relevant juncture, it is doubtful as to whether the provisions of the POCSO Act could at all be attracted in the present case. It was evident from the depositions of the mother of the victim as well as the victim herself, as corroborated by the father of the victim, that the complaint was a mere backlash due to the altercation regarding the conditions of marriage and could not be construed to have convincingly prove commission of offences under Section 376 of the IPC or Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The court perused the facts and argument’s  presented , it was of the opinion that – “In such view of the matter, [CRA No.209 of 2017] is allowed, thereby setting aside the judgment and orders of conviction and sentence 11 dated February 7, 2017 and February 8, 2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Second Court at Krishnanagar, District-Nadia in Sessions Trial No.IX(III)/2016.  The appellant is hereby acquitted of all the charges and shall immediately be released, if in custody. The appellant is further discharged from any condition or bond, if furnished by the appellant in connection with any order of bail obtained by the appellant at any point of time”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira B S

The petitioner was taken into custody under Section 147, of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for rioting”, Section 149, “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence commit­ted in the prosecution of a common object”, section 341, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 504, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace” and Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “Attempt to commit culpable homicide.” The petition is in connection with Fatehpur PS Case No. 315 of 2018 dated 13.10.2018.

In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 17^th of September 2021 in the case of Bhola Paswan Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5538 of 2021], Mr S S P Yadav represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, represented the State of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.

The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners along with five named and seven unknown persons were accused of assaulting the informant, specifically against the petitioner as he inflicted a blow on the head of the informant with a lathi resulting in injuries and also hit the hand of the informant resulting in a fracture of the right hand.

The counsel representing the petitioner held that the father of the petitioner has also filed for a counter case Fatehpur [PS Case No. 316 of 2018], under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 504, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. The counsel held that the informant’s daughter had committed suicide about a month back and the petitioner’s side was accused and the father of the petitioner was branded as a daain. However, the informant’s side were aggressors and they committed an assault on the petitioner as he had sustained head injuries and the mother of the petitioner suffered a fracture due to the assault. The dispute arose due to different castes however the issue has now been compromised by the parties themselves and the same has been filed as a supplementary affidavit as a record before the court. Further, the counsel held that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

The counsel for the petitioner held that the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Gaya, in his order dated 13.10.2020 passed in ABP [No. 4085 of 2019] rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail for the petitioner due to the injury report however the type of injury was not stated. The counsel prays for bail as a compromise has been established between the parties and such a compromise was made without any threat or coercion and the informant himself is unwilling to pursue the case.

The additional public prosecutor submitted that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya has also sent a report which shows that the parties have compromised the matter and peace is prevailing in the area.

Therefore the Honourable Court concluded that “Given there being peace between the parties and they have voluntarily compromised the matter by filing joint compromise petition in both the cases in February 2021 itself and peace being restored in the area, for the ends of justice, the Court deems it appropriate to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail so that peace between the parties is sustained as otherwise if any side suffers adverse consequences, there are chances of the enmity between the sides reviving. The petitioner is released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham 

The petitioners apprehended arrest under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, “Punishment for wrongful restraint”, section 323, “Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt”, section 324, “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”, section 379, “Punishment for theft”, section 307, “Murder attempt” and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace”. The petition is in connection with Majhaulia PS Case No. 377 of 2020 dated 01.06.2020.

In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, this judgement was given by Honourable Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 17^th of September  2021 in the case of Awasar Dewan @ Asar Dewan and others Versus the State of Bihar, [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3363 of 2021] Mr Nasrul Hoda Khan represented as the advocate for the petitioner, Mr Jharkhandi Upadhyay, represented the State of Bihar as the additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr Umesh Chandra Verma,  represented as the advocate for the informant, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.

The following are the facts of the case, the petitioners along with others were accused of assaulting the informant and his brother, petitioner no.1 was accused of taking 1Kg. of apple from the cart of the informant and refused to pay and even abused him. Petitioner no.3 took Rs. 4,000 cash from the cart belonging to the informant and petitioner no.4 was accused only in general terms and does not have any specific overt act attributed to him.

The counsel representing petitioner no. 1,3 and 4  held that this entire scenario is a trivial issue and has been blown out of proportion associated with a mala fide intention. After investigation, it was held that the injury suffered by the informant was simple. The petitioners are not associated with any assault and they have no criminal antecedent as well.

The additional public prosecutor held that petitioner no.1 was guilty of taking away the apples belonging to the petitioner and failed to pay him the same and the and petitioner no.3 was guilty of taking away Rs. 4,000 cash and petitioner no.4 was party to this assault. The counsel representing the informant held that all the petitioners are brothers and had taken part in the assault. However, it is not controverted that the allegations are simple, general and omnibus. The specific allegation is against petitioner no.2 as he caused an injury damaging the skull and grievous injuries were sustained according to the CT scan however the petitioner no.2 is no more a petitioner as he already surrendered before the court.

The Honourable Court concluded that “Given the nature of the allegations as also that the petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4 do not have any criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow their prayer for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner no. 1, 3, 4 be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the said petitioners, (ii) that the said petitioners and the bailors shall execute the bond and give an undertaking concerning good behaviour of the said and (iii) that the said petitioners shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. The petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms.”

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by – A. Beryl Sugirtham