LAWS(PAT)-2012-6-83

RAMA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On June 22, 2012
Rama Yadav Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.A. Khan, J. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case.

(2.) This appeal arises out of a judgment passed in Sessions Trial No. 591 of 1998 on 29th January, 2000 by the 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj by which the sole appellant who is the father-in-law of the victim girl has been convicted under Sections 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 304(B) and 2 years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

(3.) On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Gopal Choudhary, the father of Indu Devi, the victim, the case was instituted. The prosecution case is that the daughter of the informant was married 7 years ago to Yogendra Yadav. She had to live with her in-laws in the village, whereas her husband had gone out of the village to work and was not present when the said occurrence is said to have taken place. It is said that on 21.5.1998 the son of the informant Upendra Yadav went to fetch Indu Devi from her in-laws house on the occasion of the marriage of her younger sister. It is alleged that her father-in-law-appellant did not allow her to go to her parents house and asked her brother to take her on the day of the marriage on the ground that Indu Devi was unwell. On the date of the marriage, the younger son Ghanshyam Yadav went to the village where his sister resided, on that day also she was not permitted to go to the parents' house by her father-in-law. It is further alleged that the son and daughter were assaulted by the appellant. On the next date the informant learnt that his daughter had died. He sent his son to find out whether the information was correct. When his son reached the village he was told that the girl was in the hospital for treatment. The informant's son tried to trace Indu Devi in the hospital but could not find her. It is, therefore, alleged that the appellant has killed his daughter and did away with her body without giving any information to the informant.