SUBHASH YADAV AND ORS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, preferred by the two Appellants, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.3.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Munger in S.T. No. 977 of 2004 by which the Appellants were found guilty of committing offence under Sections 304B Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant Subhash Yadav was directed to suffer RI for ten years and one year respectively on the two counts of his conviction whereas Appellant Sudama Devi, the mother of Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to RI for seven years and one year respectively on the two above counts. The sentences in respect of both the Appellants were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Some of the facts appear admitted that Sunita Devi (deceased) was married to Appellant Subhash Yadav some five years prior to the occurrence and she had a son out of the wedlock. It is also not denied that Sunita Devi died and death was under circumstances not natural. The prosecution alleged that Sunita Devi on the day of the occurrence, i.e., on or about 30th March, 2004, was residing in the house of the Appellants whereas the Appellants set up a defence that the lady had strayed away out of their house as she was a deranged person and probably met with her accidental death. The primary allegations, which appear against the Appellants are that after having resided in the house of the Appellants after being married to Appellant No. 1 for about one and half years and after having begotten a son, the deceased was being asked to bring rupees fifty thousand as dowry by two Appellants, which was not being paid and, as a result of that, she was tortured. It was lastly stated that on 30th March, 2004, a telephonic message was received by the informant Sudhir Yadav (P.W. 8) informing him that the dead body of his sister was lying on the railway track as she had been murdered by her family members. Receiving the information, P.W. 8 states, he came to Munger with some persons but, since the dead body had been brought to the police station by them, he went there and identified the dead body to be that of his sister.

(3.) The report (Ext.3) was lodged and on that basis, the FIR was drawn up and at the end of it, final report sending up the Appellant for trial, was submitted.