SHYAMA DEVI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been found guilty under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka, has found the appellants guilty under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellants have further been convicted under Section 498A, IPC but no separate sentence has been passed under the aforesaid Section. The prosecution case has been instituted on the statement of Bhudeo Das, the uncle (chacha) of the deceased Chanda Devi. Fardbeyan was recorded in the house of Sudin Das, i.e. father -in -law of the deceased. It has been stated by Bhudeo Das that the son of his brother -in -law, namely, Raj Kumar Das, informed him regarding the death of Chanda Devi. On getting this information, he along with his brother Hriday Narain Das and his wife Chinta Devi went to the place of occurrence and found that Chanda Devi was lying in courtyard in a burnt state. The cause of the death, according to the informant, is demand of cycle and watch by the appellant Nos. 2 and 4. The informant further claims that no one was present in the house at the time of occurrence.

(2.) IN this case altogether 14 witnesses have been examined out of whom PW 13 is the Advocate -Clerk who has proved the writing of the Officer -in -Charge on the fardbeyan Ext. 2 and Ext. 3. PW 14 has proved the post -mortem report. The doctor and I.O. in this case have not been examined. PWs 1, 3, 4, 8, 11 and 12 have been declared hostile in this case. It may be mentioned that PW 12 Raj Kumar Das is the son of the informant has not supported the case, rather he has stated that he has not been examined by the I.O. in this case. The conviction has taken place on the basis of the evidence of PW 2 and PW 6. Before discussing the evidence of PW 2 and PW 6, i.e., informant and his brother, this Court would like to refer the independent evidence of PW 5, PW 7, PW 9 and PW10. PW 5 Md. Akhtar Ali is the mukhiya of the village and is a witness to the inquest report. He has identified his signature Ext. 1 and has also stated that PW 1 has signed on the inquest report. According to the evidence of this witness, he went to the place of occurrence after being informed by appellant No. 2 Doria Devi regarding the occurrence. He found that the father -in -law and the husband of deceased Chanda Devi were not present at the place of occurrence. He found Chanda Devi in a burnt condition. He also pointed out that Shyama Devi and Laxman Das had no connection with the household of Sudhin Das and Basudeo Das and had been implicated in this case due to enmity.

(3.) ON perusal of the evidence of these witnesses, it is apparent that none of them has supported the prosecution case, the prosecution has not declared them hostile and it would appear from their evidence that Basudeo Das was not present at the place of occurrence when the occurrence took place. Their evidence also discloses that there was no demand of dowry and that Chanda Devi had received the burn injuries while she was boiling milk. It is also important to note, that according to these witnesses, that appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have been roped in and made accused in this case because of enmity. These facts would also be supported by evidence of PW 2 and PW 6.