RAM NARAIN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When on 25.03.2010, Cr. APP (DB) No. 147 of 2010 was listed then it came to the notice that another accused/co-convict has prayed for bail through Cr. App (DB) No. 124 of 2010 which has already admitted for hearing and the lower court record has been called for which has already been received. The connected record of Cr. App (DB) No. 124 of 2010 was ordered to be placed under the heading "To Be Mentioned" and it has accordingly been listed today. There was an order on 25.03.2010 in Cr. App (DB) No. 147 of 2010 that both the appeals should be heard together and, if possible, the effort should be made to dispose of the cases. Learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the State have been heard at length and both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Fardbeyan, dated 05.02.2007 of the informant namely, Asharfi Sah resulted in Kisanpur P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007. In the fardbeyan the informant alleged that his sister Sulekha Devi was married with Ram Narain Sah about 3 years prior to the occurrence. She went to the house of her husband. Thereafter, the accused persons namely, the appellants started pressing her for demand of 10 Kathhas of land by way of additional dowry. When the desired additional dowry was not fulfilled it resulted into killing of the informant's sister Sulekha Devi. The informant was informed after dead body was disposed of. The informant made a search and during the search he got message that a dead body was lying on the sand of Koshi river. For confirmation, he went there and found the dead body of his sister. After investigation, I.O. submitted two charge sheet for the offence under Sections 304(B)/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, separately, against the accused Ram Narain Sah and Satya Narain Sah. Cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions where charges were framed and explained to the accused persons they pleaded innocent and they prefer to face the trial.

(3.) The defence of the appellants was of false implication and also that the case was lodged on account of some confusion. It was a natural death for which the appellants were not responsible. The demand of dowry and torture has also been denied.