BASANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 14-7-1989 recorded by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 1998 whereunder the learned appellate Court had confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence against three petitioners in Complaint Case No. 501 of 1993 except, that the conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ("D.P. Act", in short) was maintained only in connection with petitioner Hira Lal Gupta. All the accused were convicted by the learned lower Court under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ("the Code", in short) as well under Section 4 of the D.P. Act sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and six months, respectively which were also ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the complainant, in short, may be referred to as under complaint petition in which it was alleged that the complainant Anita Devi was married to Ratnesh Kumar Gupta, son of petitioners Hira Lal Gupta and Smt. Basanti Devi and brother of petitioner Mithlesh Kumar Gupta. It was alleged that on the date of marriage Hira Lal Gupta had demanded Rs. 50,000.00 which was undertaken to be paid later. When in 1992 the fater of the complainant expressed inability to pay the amount, the complainant thereafter used to be tortured by the accused persons including her husband who, incidentally, did not face the trial as having absconded. She was kept without food and water and was also assaulted at which she returned back to her father. However, in Sept. 1992 her husband gave assurance to keep her properly and took her back to his house, but she was again tortured by the accused. The accused again gave assurance to the father of the complainant to keep her properly and the complainant was again allowed to go with them but the same story continued and even her ornaments and clothes were snatched. She was assaulted and threatened to be killed in Sept. 1993 in default of bringing money at which she managed to escape from their house. Thereafter, a Panchayati was held but to no avail nor her ornaments were returned but, on the other hand, the parents of her husband threatened to remarry their son.

(3.) It will appear that after enquriy the accused persons were summoned and the trial was held against the petitioners who were convicted as aforesaid.