SUMITRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A mother and her son, the two appellants in this appeal before us, are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6 -6 -1987 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 346 of 1986/36 of 1986 convicting and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of, the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC).

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the marriage of Mithila Kumari, the daughter of informant Narayan Yadav (PW 4), was solemnised with appellant Ram Nandan Yadav in the year 1979. The 'Roksadi was performed in the month of April, 1984 and since the Mithila Kumari, was living in her 'sasural' in the house of co - accused Prayag Yadav, her father -in -law. On 1 -9 -1985 the informant on receipt of information that Mtthila Kumari was ill, reached her ''sasural" at about 2.30 p.m. He met Mithila Kumari who told him that her husband - appellant Ram Nandan Yadav, her mother -in -law appellant Sumitra Devi and her father -in -law co -accused Prayag Yadav were torturing her in different manner on the ground that adequate dowry was not given to them. When she was telling all these to the informant, appellant Sumitra Devi and co - accused Prayag Yadav were hearing this and at that time, appellant Ram Nandan Yadav had gone somewhere else who on the same day reached his house at about 4.30 p.m. The appellant Sumitra Devi then told appellant Ram Nandan Yadav that Mithila Kumari was complaining about them to her father. Appellant Rain Nandan Yadav became enraged and started abusing Mithila Kumari. At the same time, co - accused Prayag Yadav ordered for killing Mithila Kumari. On his order, appellant Sumitra Dev1 caught hold of hair of Mithila Kumari who at that time was pregnant and was sitting on a cot and pulled her on the floor. When Mithila Kumari fell down on the floor, appellant Ram Nandan Yadav assaulted her with kicks on her abdomen as the result of which Mithila Kumari spontaneously died there. The informant asked the appellants not to assault her daughter but they scolded him also and when informant raised hulla, villagers, namely, Ram Pravesh Yadav (not examined), mother of Ram Pravesh Yadav (not examined) and others reached there who also saw the occurrence. Witness Mahavir Sao (PW 5) who was with the informant also saw the occurrence. The informant then went to Shekhpura Police Station and lodged the FIR (Ext. 3). In the FIR giving details of the aforesaid occurrence, he also stated that his daughter from time to time used to inform him that she was being tortured by both the appellants and co -accused Prayag Yadav.

(3.) IN order to substantiate the charge, against the appellants the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses. Narayan Yadav (PW4) is the informant and father of deceased Mith1la Kumari. Mahavir Sao (PW5) is said to be an eye - witness to the occurrence. Ram Naresh Singh (PW6) is the I.O. Dr. Aftab Faiz (PW7) is the. Doctor who had held post - mortem examination on the dead - body of Mithila Kumari, Mahendra Rat (PW1), Banarsi Rat (PW2) and Kaukambhari Yadav (PW3) have not supported the case of prosecution and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution.