ANRUDH DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants, above named, along with others were arrayed as accused in Parbatta P.S. Case No. 398 of 2015 registered under Ss. 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the written report of Arvind Yadav of village Ariya, P.S. Parbatta, District- Khagaria. After investigation of the case police exonerated several accused vide Charge-sheet No. 175 dtd. 17/4/2016. However, sent to appellant Anrudh Das for trial and investigation against appellant Birbal Yadav and non-FIR accused Nandu Yadav was kept pending. Thereafter, another charge-sheet under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. was filed vide Charge-sheet No. 440 of 2016 dtd. 30/11/2016 against appellant Birbal Das @ Birbal Yadav and investigation against non-FIR accused Nandu Yadav was kept pending. Due to filing of separate charge sheet the trial against the appellants were separately committed to the Court of Sessions. Appellant Birbal Das faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 2017/27 of 2018 for offences under Ss. 304B, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Anrudh Das faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2016/715 of 2019 for offences under Ss. 304B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dtd. 29/5/2019 and order of sentence dtd. 31/5/2019 passed separately in two sessions trial by the same Presiding Officer of the Court of learned Fast Track Court No. I, Khagaria, the appellants were found guilty for the offences under Ss. 304B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine of rupees ten thousand for offence under Sec. 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of rupees two thousand for offence under Sec. 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine of rupees ten thousand the appellants were directed to undergo three months simple imprisonment and in default of payment of fine of rupees two thousand one month simple imprisonment was ordered. Appellant Birbal Das was acquitted of charge under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have challenged herein their conviction and sentence passed in the aforesaid sessions trial.

(2.) The prosecution case, as disclosed in the first written report of Mr. Arvind Yadav submitted to Parbatta Police Station, is that his daughter K was married five years back with appellant Birbal Das of village Parbatta, PS. Parbatta, District-Khagaria. The marriage was solemnized after giving gift (Dan Dahej). After marriage Birbal Das and his brother Anrudh Das (appellants above) always used to abuse and assault to K and asked her to bring rupees one lac from her father failing which she would be killed. The informant along with his relatives several times visited and consoled the appellants Birbal Das and Anrudh Das; rather paid rupees sixty thousand. About five months back, a male child born of the wedlock of Birbal and K. On 23/12/2005 appellant Anrudh Das called the informant from the mobile of K and informed that K has already died. Thereafter, he disconnected the call. Thereafter, the informant and others came to the house of Birbal Das. Only Anrudh Das was found at the house. When the informant inquired whereabouts of K, Anrudh Das abused and informed that he has already killed K and the informant is free to do whatever he can. Thereafter, the informant and others caught Anrudh Das to take him to the police station. In the meantime, other accused persons came there and started assault against the informant and got forceful release of Anrudh Das. The villagers informed that the dead body of 'K' is lying in the Jhaua field area. The informant apprehended that the dead body of K was hidden by the appellant and others just to screen the evidence of crime.

(3.) Mr. S.M. Ashraf, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both these appeals, submits that in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 2017 wherein only appellant Birbal Das faced trial, only two prosecution witnesses were examined. One was Arvind Yadav, the informant of the case, and another Dr. Birendra Kumar Sharma who had performed post mortem examination on the dead body of K. Thus, this is a case of solitary witness and conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of the informant who is an interested witness. Learned counsel next contends that there is complete lack of evidence that the victim lady K was tortured for non-fulfillment of dowry demand before her death much-less "soon before" her death.