RAM BABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the conviction and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (In short, IPC) and RI for three years under Section 201, IPC arising from the judgment and order dated 10-4-1987 passed by Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 1986 the appellant is aggrieved and has filed this present appeal.

(2.) The case of prosecution in short is that Madan Pandey (P.W. 5), the informant, on 11-8-1984 on the occasion of 'Raksha Bandhan' went to village Nandpur, P.S. Sangrampur within the district of East Champaran to meet his sister Radhika Devi, now deceased, who was married to the appellant. The informant reached the house of appellant at about 6.00 a.m. and found that the main door of the house was closed from inside and when he knocked at the door the appellant opened the door and the informant wished him but the appellant did not reply and went out. The informant then entered the courtyard of the house of appellant where he found the mother, the sister, and the brother-in-law of appellant sitting there along with their servant Raghunath Hajara. They all one by one, seeing the informant, went outside the house. This action arose suspicion in the mind of information and he then called his sister but did not get any reply and then he entered the room of his sister but he did hot find her there. The informant also found that the floor of the room of her sister was freshly sweeped and the walls of the house were also sweeped with cow dung up to waist height. The informant went out of the house and found that some children were playing on road in front of the house of appellant and out of those children one girl informed him that his sister had already been killed on the previous night and had been cremated in an orchard. The informant started weeping and wanted to enquire of the matter from the neighbours of the appellant but they all entered their house but one old man Ram Daya Singh (P.W. 3) told him that on the previous night at about 9.00 p.m. he had heard flattering sound from the house of appellant and in the morning he came to know that the dead body of the sister of informant had been stealthily cremated in a lonely orchard. The informant then went to an orchard where he found fresh signs of cremation and also found some bone scattered here and there. He also found iron joints by which the legs of 'chawki' are tied and iron angles generally used in the planks of the door suggesting that the dead body was brought on a pyre made of the planks of door, legs of a 'chawki' etc. On the basis of information given by the child girl and by observing the behaviour of the appellant and his family members the informant was convinced that his sister had been killed by the appellant, his mother, his sister, his brother-in-law and servant Raghunath Hajara and they along with their neighbours had disposed of the dead body in order to destroy the evidence of murder. The informant went to his village where he informed about the occurrence to his family members and thereafter he along with his father-in-law Mahavir Mishra (P.W. 6) and his uncle Ram Dhayan Pandey (P.W. 4) went to the police station on the same day at about 5.00 p.m. and lodged the F.I.R. (Ext. 1). In the F.I.R. the informant giving the background of the occurrence stated that his sister was married to appellant about 12 years before, she was issueless and she was subjected to torture in different ways by appellant, his mother, his sister and some times they used to complaint on account of dowry also. About four years ago his sister had sent him information that she was aggrieved by the inhuman behaviour of appellant and his family members and informant then brought his sister to his own house. Thereafter neither the appellant nor his family members came to take back his sister and the informant finding it not proper to keep his sister with him for a long time requested the appellant to take his sister with him but the appellant did not listen to him. In the meantime the informant came to know that the appellant was planning to marry the daughter of Anant Lal Pandey. He then along with his father-in-law Mahavir Mishra (P.W 6), his uncle Ram Dhyan Pandey (P.W. 4) arranged 'Panchayati' at the house of appellant which was attended by Ram Ayodhya Singh, Ram Nihore Singh (P.W. 8), Ramashraya Singh (not examined) and others and the 'Panchayat' decided that the appellant will not marry for the second time. On this the appellant made a demand of Rs. 500/- saying that he had already spent this amount in negotiations for his second marriage and assured that if he gets back this money he will not marry for the second time. The information accepting the demand of appellant paid a sum of Rs. 500/- but in spite of that the appellant did not take the sister of informant to his house and then the appellant got an advocate's notice sent to the appellant and thereafter the appellant took away the sister of informant to his house and thereafter when the informant on the occasion of 'Raksha Bandhan' on 11-8-1984 went to meet his sister he came to know about the occurrence.

(3.) The police registered a case against the appellant, his mother, his sister, his brother-in-law and his servant but after investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. against the appellant only keeping the investigation pending in respect of other accused persons named in the F.I.R. on the basis of charge-sheet cognizance of the case was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charges under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. were framed against the appellant.