PRADEEP YADAV, SON OF SAJJAN PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOMADIH, POLICE STATION FULLIDUMAR (AMARPUR), DISTRICT BANKA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband, who is the sole appellant in this appeal, has been found guilty under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 606 of 1999. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and 2 years respectively. In this appeal, charges were framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the Trial Court has ultimately convicted the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THIS case has been based on the statement of the brother -in -law of the deceased Ranjo Devi, who has given his bayan at village Domadih, where the deceased and the informant both reside. Bodhi Yadav's sister (the deceased) was married to Pradeep Yadav (the appellant) of Domadih village. Bodhi Yadav claims that he had arranged the marriage of Ranjo Devi with his cousin Pradeep Yadav. Both of them live about 10 yards away from each other. It is the case of the informant that Sajjan Yadav, his uncle (chachera chacha) came to his house in the morning of 14.05.1997 and told him that Ranjo Devi had gone to relieve herself and after returning, she is lying in an unconscious condition. As per the First Information Report, the informant accompanied Sajjan Yadav and decided to call the local doctor i.e. Dr. Arun Kumar. The doctor advised him to take the deceased to Amarpur or Bhagalpur for treatment. However, on the insistence of Sajjan Yadav, he administered saline to her in order to revive her. Seeing that there was no difference in her condition, the informant along with Sajjan Yadav and the doctor took her on a cart to Bhagalpur. On the way, the cart carrying Ranjo Devi stopped and the doctor explained that Ranjo Devi was dead. Thereafter, they returned back to the village. When they returned back, the informant claims that Pradeep Yadav was not present in the house. He alleges that when he noticed that there was a mark on the neck of Ranjo Devi, which indicates that her neck had been pressed in order to do away with her life. He alleges that there was a demand of a motorcycle by the husband Pradeep Yadav. The informant and Anandi Yadav had explained to them that it was not possible to give a motorcycle to Pradeep Yadav. Information was sent to Anandi Yadav regarding the death of his daughter. It is believed by the informant that she had been killed because of the non -fulfillment of the demand raised by Pradeep Yadav.

(3.) IN the aforesaid background, this Court would now examine the oral evidence which has come on record to support the prosecution version. Satya Narayan Yadav is the first witness who has been examined as PW 1 in this case. He has come out with a completely different version of the occurrence. According to this witness, he was sleeping on the platform near the temple when he heard the sound of Ranjo Devi screaming for help at about 3:30 AM in the morning. This witness went back to sleep, later on, in the morning he learnt that Ranjo Devi had died. He accepts that Dr. Arun Kumar had come to the place of occurrence and had administered saline to Ranjo Devi and that she died while she was being taken to hospital for further treatment. He supports the story of demand of a motorcycle and claims that the deceased died because of the assault which took place in the wee hours of the morning of 14.05.1997. According to him, he was sleeping at a distance of about 100 yards from the place of occurrence and that there are about 3 houses in between the house of Ranjo Devi and the platform where he was sleeping along with 7 -8 other persons. PW 1 admits in his cross -examination that he was on inimical terms with Satish. Sajjan i.e. the father of the appellant was a Panch on behalf of Satish. The reason for the dispute was that his grand -father (Nana) did not have any sons, and so he had given a piece of land to Satish which was being claimed by PW 1. Eventually, because of the decision given by Sajjan in favour of Satish, the land remained with Satish. Despite the aforesaid background, this witness denies that he does not bear ill -feeling towards Sajjan and his family members. On perusal of the evidence of PW 1, it is apparent that he has tried to make out a case that the deceased was assaulted during the night and she was screaming for help, although, it would appear that nobody including PW 1 responded to her shouts of help. Not only that, the witness did not bother to inform Bodhi Yadav regarding the occurrence so that both of them could have reached the house of Ranjo Devi to intervene in the matter. Therefore, the evidence as led by PW 1 is rather unbelievable. The reason is obvious. Despite, the fact that he has denied the enmity, he obviously had an axe to grind with Sajjan Yadav who had deprived him the benefit of a piece of land by deciding as a Panch in favour of Satish Yadav. It may be mentioned that Satya Narayan Yadav is closely related to Bodhi Yadav as all of them came from a common ancestor which has been mentioned in the evidence of PW 1.