NAWAL KISHORE @ KALLU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.02.2007/10.02.2007 of the Additional Court No. II (F.T.C.), Patna in S.T. No. 697 of 1988/39 of 2001 whereby, the appellant has been convicted u/s. 304-B/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for ten years.

(2.) The prosecution case vide written report (Ext-1) of the informant Chhotelal Gupta (P.W. 2) as filed before the Officer-ln-Charge, Malsalami Police Station on 27.04.1988 is that he had married his daughter Champa Devi (deceased) to appellant Nawal Kishore @ Kallu of Yamunapur Malki Kutchery in the year 1987. That day (27.04.1988) at 3:30 A.M. he received information that his daughter had been killed. Knowing this he (informant), along with his family members and co-villager went to Yamunapur Mohalla, Malki Kutchery i.e. Sasural house of his deceased daughter and saw that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the Palang in her room. The look of the dead body clearly indicated that she had been strangulated. The informant alleged that previously on 24.08.1988 he had gone to bring his daughter (deceased) from her Sasural to her Maika but the appellant and her father inlaw and mother-in-law had not allowed her to go. It was also stated in the written report that when he (informant) had met his (deceased) daughter she was healthy but looked terrified. On being asked she (deceased) had disclosed that her husband (appellant), father-in-law and mother-in-law were demanding money and they were also mentally torturing her for the demand. He (informant) consoled her (deceased) and said that he was not affluent man but anyhow he will manage some money and will give it to the deceased's husband (appellant) and her Sasural people. He further submitted that while he was returning from there, his son-in-law (appellant) accompanied him to see him off and at that time, he demanded Rs. 5,000.00 and threatened with dire consequence in case of non-payment. That day (27.04.1988) he enquired from the people of the locality of her (deceased's) Sasural but they did not disclose anything out of fear saying that they had fear of life if they disclosed anything against him (appellant). Anyhow he (the informant) learnt that his daughter (deceased) had been killed on 26.04.1988 between 2:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. He further stated that he had given ornaments, T.V., watch, radio and clothes to the appellant in marriage but the appellant, his father and mother killed the deceased by throttling her due to non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 5,000.00. On the basis of the written report, FIR (Ext-6) was instituted and the investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant, his father and mother. The father and the mother i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased died during trial and the trial proceeded against the appellant who has been convicted and sentenced as above on conclusion of the same.

(3.) As many as eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 Mira Devi, the Bhabhi of the appellant has turned hostile and she has not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 2 Chhotelal Gupta is the informant hismelf. P.W. 3 Kalawati Devi is the mother of the deceased, PW 4 Bidya Nath Prasad is the cousin brother of the deceased. P.W. 5 Rambali Choudhary is a tenant in informant's house. P.W. 6 Vishwa Nath Prasad, who is the uncle of the deceased has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 7 Sangeeta Kumari is the sister of the deceased. P.W. 8 Parmeshwar Prasad is a witness on the point of seizure of Sarhi and wrist watch from deceased's room. P.W. 9 Naresh Prasad is the witness in presence of whom the inquest report of the dead body was prepared. P.W. 10 Surya Narayan is Advocate's Clerk who has proved the wirtings on the post mortem report by Dr. Chandeshwar Prasad, who had conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of the deceased. He also stated that Dr. Chandeshwar Prasad was dead. P.W. 11 Punit Ram is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W. 10 formally proved the P.M. Report in the writings of Dr. Chandeshwar Prasad who is dead. The P.M. Report mentioned the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased: