MUNMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROSECUTION case initiated on Fardbeyan of Parmila Devi victim of the case, in brief, is that she was married to accused appellant no. 3 Bhondu Yadav two and half years ago. Appellant no.2 Guman Yadav was her father-in-law and appellant no. 1 Munma devi was her mother-in-law. Duragaman took place 7-8 months thereafter. After Duragaman, the allegation is that Rs. 10,000/- in cash was being demanded as dowry for which she was treated cruelly including beating, in that consequence on non-fulfilment of demand of dowry in the morning of 24.1.1995 father-in-law Guman Yadav exhorted to set her on fire which was complied and consequently she was overpowered by appellant nos. 1 and 3, then Guman Yadav poured kerosene oil on her body and appellant no.1 Munma Devi set her on fire by lighting a match stick. Informant-victim threw her baby in lap on straw and fought with the fire but burn injury appeared all around her body. Later she was confined in a room. Her father could learn the incident, came to her Sasural on 26.1.1995, queried about whereabout of the victim-informant and was replied by appellant no.1 that she had gone to her parents' house but she was heard screaming, on entering the house, she was seen with burn injuries, so, was taken back his home and then to hospital at Biharsharif where treatment was provided to her as well her statement/Fardbeyan was recorded by the Police for lodging the case.

(2.) AFTER concluding the trial, appellants are convicted for the offence under sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal.

(3.) NOW remains the intention if was not for murder. The only circumstance in the case is that victim remained in appellants' house for two days more after her burning but not was killed, in my view, intention prevailing at the time of real causing of assault is relevant. In the instant case, victim is set on fire by pouring kerosene oil may never be viewed with other intention than to kill. Circumstance is that she remained in appellants' house for two days clearly appears to not allowing her to come out of the house that never can be taken to minimise the allegation nor in any way can help the appellants if later they changed their opinion (intention) to kill the victim.