LAWS(PAT)-2000-1-83

RAM CHARAN SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On January 18, 2000
RAM CHARAN SAO Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This criminal appeal has arisen out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Mr. Sudarshan Upadhyay, 15t AddI. Sessions Judge, Chatra In S.T. No. 314/93 whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years each under Sections 304- B/34 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code is awarded against the appellants.

(2.) The case of the prosecution runs as follows: One Ganesh Sao, father of the deceased, Kanti Devi gave fardbeyan before the police alleging therein that Kanti Debi (deceased) was married with the appellant, Bigan Sao and after solemnisation of marriage, she went to her husbands house. It is further alleged that Bigan Sao demanded a Motor Cycle and a gold chain from the informant and he also threatened that if the demands are not fulfilled, the daughter would be killed. The informant told him that he had no money at the time and thereafter, Bigan Sao started torturing his daughter and also threatening took her back to his house. It is further alleged that the other appellants including Vijay Kumar Gupta and Han Sao started torturing his daughter. On 17-3-1992, one Gopi Sao came to the informant at about 7 a.m. and informed that all the accused persons had killed his daughter, Kanti Debi by strangulation. On the basis of the fardbeyan the First Information Report was lodged. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet. All the accused-persons including the appellants appeared in the lower Court and the charges under Sections 3/4/34 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 304/34 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code were framed against all the accused-persons including the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The defence case as claimed is that the appellant have been falsely implicated in this case and they have committed no offence as the Kanti Devi died due to natural death.