THAKKAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court affirming the conviction of the present appellants for offences punishable u/s. 304 and Sec. 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and sentence of 10 years and three years respectively imposed in respect of the said offences as recorded by the trial court. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the trial court.

(2.) The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: Report was lodged by Rajendra Jha (PW 4) to the effect that his daughter Buchi Devi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married to Trilok Jha in the month of Baisakh 1993. The gauna was organised some time thereafter. At the time of gauna, demand was made for a Rajdoot motorcycle and Rs. 15,000.00 in cash. Expressing financial difficulties the informant requested that the demand may not be insisted upon as a condition precedent for the gauna. As some respectable persons of the locality intervened, the gauna was performed sometime in the month of Baisakh 1993. Thereafter the deceased was always sending messages that she was being tortured and subjected to harassment for non-supply of demanded articles. She was subjected to assaults and was being deprived of food and clothing. The informant in the company of some other co-villager went to the house of the appellants and requested them not to torture his daughter merely because he was unable to supply articles on account of financial hardships. But thereafter also the torture continued and the deceased used to send messages regarding such tortures. On the night of 20.7.1999, the deceased lost her life. The death was unnatural. The informant indicated that he came to know of the death which purportedly took place in the night of 20/21.7.1999 only on 26.7.1999. He went to the police station on 27.7.1999, but to his utter surprise found the appellants sitting there. After registering the first information report, investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was placed against the present appellants and the husband who also faced trial. All the four accused persons were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as noted above. The stand of the accused-appellants was that the deceased died on account of ailment, she was cremated after informing her paternal family members and it was Rajendra Jha, PW 4 the father of the deceased who performed the last rites. It was urged that the marriage took place in 1990. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to further its version. PW 4 is the informant, PW 3 is the mother of the deceased, PW 2 is the brother and PW 1 an uncle of the deceased. Placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court found that the marriage was solemnised sometime in the year 1993 and not in 1990 as was claimed by the accused-appellant. It found that there was enough evidence of torture for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

(3.) The evidence of DW 1 who was examined to prove death of the deceased due to ailment was discarded on the ground that his evidence did not inspire confidence. As noted above the trial court convicted all the four accused persons before it. Except the husband, all other accused persons preferred appeal. In appeal the primary stand was that there was no evidence to show about the marriage having being solemnised in 1993 contrary to the stand of the defence that it was solemnised in the year 1990. The High Court after analysing the evidence in great detail came to hold that the judgment of the trial court did not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.