SATYANARAYAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant Satyanarayan Yadav, who happens to be husband of deceased Lakhi Devi, is challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 4/3/2014 and 6/3/2014 respectively passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Katihar, in Sessions Trial No.377 of 2012 thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5000.00 and default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. He, however, came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibtion Act. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to as an "accused".

(2.) Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused can be summarized thus:

(3.) We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at sufficient length of time. He submitted that evidence adduced by the prosecution is discrepant and lacking the assurance which is required in the criminal trial for convicting the accused. The eye witness account given by the daughter of the deceased is too sketchy and this child witness has no competency to depose in the criminal trial. The learned trial court has not taken precaution to test her competency to testify by asking any preliminary question to her. It is further argued that bare perusal of the statement of this witness made before the court is sufficient to reject her version. It is also argued that evidence of another eye witness P.W.3 Devi Ghosh is also far from satisfactory. Her presence on the spot of the incident at the time of the incident is not vouched by P.W.1 Mansi Kumari or D.W.1 Anita Devi-her own sister. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that even the first informant has not supported the prosecution case and he is not even declared as a hostile witness. None of the witnesses have stated about the cruel treatment to the victim of the crime in question. With this, by relying on the Judgment in the matter of P. Ramesh Versus State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 593, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that once an eye witness is disbelieved, there remains no evidence to convict the accused by holding that the prosecution has proved the charge.