KISHUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals arise from the same judgment and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) All the appellants have been convicted under Section 304-B read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. They have been further convicted under Section 201 or the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further they have been convicted under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) The prosecution case, in short, as disclosed in the written report filed by the informant Kamla Prasad Singh alias Kamlesh Singh resident of Village Khanethi, P.S. Sonhan, District Kaimur (Bhabua) is that his sister Shushila Devi deceased was married under Hindu rites with appellant, Jaswant Singh, son of appellant, Shri Kishun Singh, resident of Hariharpur, District Kaimur on 15.5.1991. It has been further alleged that the second marriage of his sister was performed on 28.2.1993 and the deceased went to her inlaws place. It has been further alleged that on Chauthi he (informant) alongwith Ram prayag Singh (P.W.4), Ganga\Singh (P.W. 2) and Sobha Nath Singh (P.W.3) went to her sisters place at Hariharpur where appellant, Shri Kishun, Singh and Bando Devi wife of Shri Kishun Singh demanded a motor cycle, T.V., and cash of Rs. 10.000/-. It has been further alleged that when he wanted to meet his sister, they were not allowed to meet her and plainly told that until and unless dowry demand is not fulfilled they shall not be allowed to see his sister. Thereafter they without meeting the deceased came back to their village. It has been further alleged that he alongwith Ram Prayag Singh (P.W.4) and Sobha Nath Singh (P.W.3) again went to the in-laws place of the deceased 4 or 5 times to pacify them but they did not give any heed to their requests. It ha been also alleged that for this demand of dowry the appellants used to harass her. His sister has written several letters to her mother, sister and his (informant) wife about all these harassment. Further it has been alleged that in the morning of 3.10. 993 he learnt from Ram prayag Singh (P.W.4) that his sister was killed by setting fire to her by her husband and in-laws. On this information informant went to the village Hariharpur at about 1.30 p.m. but none of the appellants were available at their residence and the villagers were whispering that her sister had been killed by the appellants in the night of 2.10.1993 itself and hurriedly to conceal the evidence they got the last rites of the deceased performed. On the written statement of the informant a case under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered on 4.10.1993. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and cognizance was taken and case was put on trial. The learned Sessions Judge by its order dated 13.4.2000 convicted the appellants as already stated in earlier paragraph.