SURESH SAHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction, sentence dated 19.6.93 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gulma in Sessions Trial No. 218/91, whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellants under Section 304B/34 IPC read with Sections 201/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years each under Sections 304B/34, IPC and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Sections 201/34, IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the information's daughter Mundrika Devi was married with the appellant Suresh Sahu in the month of Baisakh, 1990 according to Hindu rites and at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 24,000 was given to Suresh Sahu for purchasing a motor cycle. But, Suresh Sahu demanded another sum of Rs. 10,000 which was promised to be fulfilled later on by the informant. It is alleged that in the year 1991, the appellant Suresh Sahu along with the deceased came to the house of the informant on the eve of Holi festival and at that time also the appellant Suresh Sahu had demanded Rs. 10,000 and TV from his father-in-law (informant) which could not be fulfilled and the informant showed his inability, whereupon, Suresh Sahu is alleged to have assaulted Mundrika Devi in presence of the informant and had threatened that if the sum of Rs. 10,000 and TV is not given to him within a period of two months, his daughter Mundrika Devi will be killed. After giving such threat, the appellant Suresh Sahu left his Sasural leaving behind his wife at her paternal place. It is further alleged that Mundrika Devi complained to her father that her in-laws, Dewar and husband used to assault her for money and TV and always used to threaten her that she will be killed. It is further stated that after one week the information sent her daughter with his son Jit Narayan Sahu. On 27.3.91 at about 8.30 in the morning a boy came on a Rajdoot motor cycle and told the informant that his daughter Mundrika Devi is seriously ill and on further inquiry, he disclosed that Mundrika Devi is dead. The information sent his son Jit Narayan Sahu with that, boy on his motor cycle saying that he will be coming later on the scooter of Mohnath Sahu. The informant reached the village Murgu and learnt from the villagers that the dead-body of Mundrika Devi has been taken to Nagphani Ghat. So, the information went to Nagphani ghat and learnt that the dead-body of his daughter was burnt. The information made inquiry from his Samdhi Hari Mohan Sahu, Suresh Sahu and Naresh Sahu as to the cause of death who told that on 26.3.91 at about 7.00 p.m. Mundrika Devi felt pain in her abdomen and so they took her to Referal Hospital, Sisai, and got her examined by Dr. Sugan Bai, who gave her medicine but in the night at 3.00 a.m. Mundrika Devi died. When the informant enquired from his Samdhi that why the dead-body was cremated so soon before his arrival his Samdhi replied to him that the same was cremated because it would have decomposed. Thereafter, the informant went to village Murgu and made inquiry from the villagers, namely Shankar Sabu and Kesheri Sahu about the death of the Mundrika Devi who disclosed to him that till the evening of 26.3.99 Mundrika Devi was seen working which gave rise to suspicion in the mind of the informant, who went to Referal Hospital, Sisai where he learnt from the staff on duty that no woman named as Mundrika Devi was brought to the Hospital for treatment on 26.3.99 and Dr. Sugan Sahu was on leave since 25.3.91. The suspicion of the informant was fortified by the above disclosures made by the Hospital staff and the Informant became confident that his daughter has been killed by the accused persons for the non-fulfilment of the dowry of Rs. 10,000 and TV made by his son-in-law Suresh Sahu. The informant went to the police station and lodged the FIR, on the basis of which, a case under Sections 302/201/34, IPC was registered and the police submitted charge-sheet in the case under Sections 304B, 201/34, IPC on the basis of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) The accused-appellants were charged under Sections 304B/201/34, IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and their defence was that they are quite innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case.