BISHWANATH JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals Cr. Appeal No. 153 of 1997 and Cr. Appeal No. 166 of 1997 are being heard together and disposed of by the common judgment and order as both the appeals arises out of the same judgment and order dated 7th June, 1997 passed by Sri Ram Prabodh Singh, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Session Trial No. 139/93/34/93 arising out of Bahera P.S. Case No. 143 of 1995, G. R. No. 373 of 1992 by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The appellants have further been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The appellants have further been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and further convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they are further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months. However, it has been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case as alleged in the fardbeyan by Surendra Jha, the informant and the father of the victim is that the marriage of the victim (deceased) Yamuna Devi was solemnized with the appellant Tribhuwan Nath Jha in the year 1990 in the month of May and Duragaman was performed in May 1992. THE further case is that at the time of Duragaman Biswa Nath Jha, the father of Tribuwan Nath Jha demanded T.V. and motor-cycle on which the informant promised to fulfill the demand in due course after managing the money and then the Duragaman was performed. It is further alleged that the husband of the deceased and her in-laws used to subject her to cruelty to fulfill the demand and used to pressurize her for the same. THE further case of the prosecution is that the victim used to report the subjecting of cruelty and the informant several times went to the Sasural in this connection and used to request the in-laws not to subject her to cruelty and even shown his inability to fulfill the demand. On 21.06.1992 the informant came to Bahera and then learnt that the accused persons have done the victim to death by poisoning on 19.06.1992 and disposed of the dead body by cremating and then he brought Kabita, one year old daughter of the victim with him.

(3.) HOWEVER, having regard to the evidence of the defence it is apparent that the cause of death has not been ascertained and there was no post-mortem examination though they have stated that Naihar people of the victim have come. HOWEVER, taking into consideration the entire evidence there is no specific evidence regarding the participation of the in-laws of the victim and there is evidence that they lived out side and some are in service out side the place of occurrence, village and even the evidence regarding the demand and subjecting cruelty against the appellants than the husband is not specific.