BHAGIRATHI SUBUDHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under section 304-B I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. The sentences are to run concurrently. He has further been convicted under section 498-A, I.P.C. and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but no separate sentence under either of these was awarded. Along with the appellant, his younger brother Bhagaban and mother-Laxmi Devi and one Bhaskar Sethi also faced trial. But they have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the appellant married Ruma Dei (sister of P.W.1) in the year 1988. At the time of marriage, as per the demand made by the appellant and his parents, dowry in the shape of gold and silver ornaments, brass and the metal utensils, cash of Rs. 6,000/- and one bicycle was given. One and half years after the marriage, the appellant and Ruma Dei were blessed with a daughter The appellant had been demanding dowry and as it was persistent, brother of Ruma Dei (P.W.1) arranged and paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to enable the appellant to start a business. Thereafter, the appellant again asked for Rs. 5000/-. As the family members of Ruma could not meet the further demand, she was tortured and assaulted. The family members of Ruma tried to solve the dispute by convening a meeting of gentle men belonging to their village and the village of the appellant. Few days after the meeting was held, P.W.1 brother of Ruma heard that his sister was serious. He accordingly with his mother (P.W.2) went to the house of the appellant and found that Ruma had died and dead body had been burnt. Suspecting that Ruma had been tortured and killed by the appellant, P.W.1 lodged F.I.R. before the Officer incharge of Balugaon P.S. On receipt of the report, police registered a case and on completion of investigation, the appellant and others were charge-sheeted ultimately resulting in the conviction of the appellant as aforesaid.

(3.) IN order to bring home the charge, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. P.W.1 Rama Chandra is the brother of Ruma (thereinafter referred to as the deceased). He lodged the F.I.R. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. P.Ws. 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 belong to appellants village-Nimikheta. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 belong to Tangi, the village of the deceased. Out of the above witnesses, P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 and 9 turned hostile. The remaining two witnesses (P.Ws. 11 and 12) are the investigating police officers.