VIJOY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been convicted u/ss.304B/34 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and one year respectively with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of which further R.I. for three months by a judgment dated 2.2.1996 and 8.2.1996 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.97 of 1994.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.1992 P.W.7 S.I. of Nasriganj P.S. heard a rumour that the daughter-in-law of Sheo Pujan Sharma had been strangulated to death by the accused persons, so he proceeded to the village and recorded the statement of Choukidar Gorhan Paswan, who stated that he learnt on the previous night that the daughter-in-law of Sheo Pujan Sharma had been throttled to death and thereafter also burnt. This story was going on among the villagers as to how a woman would hang herself after burning herself. He further stated that when he heard it, he proceeded to the house of the appellants and when he learnt that the accused persons had taken the deceased to Nasriganj Hospital where they met Dr. Ramesh Prasad Singh and thereafter proceeded to some other place. In the morning some women were talking among themselves that the deceased had died and the accused persons had taken the dead body and concealed it some where. It was alleged that the appellant no.1 Vijay Kumar Sharma was not getting on well with his wife and had wanted to marry another girl, for which he had also seen some girl. THE accused persons had wanted Vijay Kumar Sharma to get married to the sister-in-law of accused Nand Kumar Sharma since there was no son in their family. It was alleged that due to these reasons as also some dispute over demand of dowry that the deceased had been done to death so that Vijay Kumar Sharma could remarry.

(3.) A further disconcerting material in the present case is that the First Information Report even though was instituted on 16.10.1992 it has been received in the court on 17.10.1992 and incidentally the postmortem examination report was also conducted on 17.10.1992 which casts suspicion on the prosecution case as to whether the fard beyan was indeed recorded on 15.10.1992 at 11.30 A.M. or whether the same was recorded after the postmortem examination report so it was in consonance with the same.