KEDAR SAHANI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who is the brother-in-law (JETH) of the deceased Urmila Devi, has been found guilty and convicted under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 299 of 2000/114 of 2000. The fardbayan was recorded on the statement of the injured lady Urmila Devi in the presence of her mother and the S.I. of Nanpur Police Station wherein she has stated that her husband is a labourer and works in Punjab. He had come home and had demanded that she should ask her parents to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, which was due to be paid on account of dowry. When she protested, she was beaten up by her husband and it is alleged that her husband set her on fire, as a result of which she received bum injuries. It is said that the In-laws were also present during the occurrence. On alarm being raised by her, co-villagers came to the place of occurrence including one Lal Babu Sahani and she was treated for her burn injuries. She has also stated that she had a daughter out of the wedlock who is about 3 years of age.

(2.) The occurrence is said to have taken place on 4.3.1999. Her statement was recorded on 6.3.1999 at her matrimonial home at about 10:30 A.M. She died subsequently on 8.3.1999 due to the burn injuries. The post mortem report has been marked as an exhibit during the trial and there is no objection to it by the defence. Rather, the mother of the deceased lady has been declared hostile alongwith the independent witnesses. It is accepted that Urmila Devi died due to burn injuries. The difference lies in the fact that Urmila Devi had purportedly stated that her husband and In-laws set her on fire, whereas Urmila Devi's mother, who was present when her daughter gave her bayan has stated her daughter died because she caught fire while cooking food. The mother of the deceased thus negates the case of demand of dowry as well as the case that her daughter died within 7 years of her marriage.

(3.) Before going any further with the judgment, I may point out here that Bedi Sahani, the father-in-law and Indrajeet Singh, the husband, faced trial vide Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2000/39 of 2000 were acquitted by the Court concerned on 6th June, 2000. It would be proper to mention the reasons given by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi for acquitting the husband and the father-in-law of the deceased lady. In the Sessions Trial aforesaid, four witnesses were examined. PW-1 sic--PW 4? Jailesh Devi, who was the mother of the deceased lady, who supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief, but has retracted from her earlier statement in cross-examination, when she has stated that her daughter was married eight years ago and that her son-in-law had not demanded dowry, rather according to the mother, her daughter died due to the burn injuries which occurred while she was cooking food. PW-2 sic--PW 1 Shambhu Sahni and PW-3 sic--PW 2 Surendra Prasad are independent witnesses who have stated that they do not know anything about the occurrence, rather they have stated that they heard that the daughter-in-law of Bedi Sahani caught fire while cooking food and the villagers had tried to extinguish the fire. PW-4 Jitendra Jha is a formal witness and has proved the signature of the A.S.I. on the fardbayan which was marked as Exhibit-1. In this case, the person who had taken the fardbayan was not examined and apparently the post mortem report was also not marked as an exhibit. Thus the acquittal.