TOOFANI THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CR . Appeal no. 371 of 2002 and Cr. Appeal no. 359 of 2002 arising out of same judgment, having been heard together, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant Surendra Thakur of Cr. Appeal no. 371 of 2002 has been convicted under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years. He was further convicted under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for six months. He was also convicted under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo the term of six months. He was further convicted under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to serve a further period of six months in jail custody. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) THE prosecution case, in short is that on a written report given by the informant Kesariya P.S. case no. 41 of 1999 was registered. According to the first information report the deceased was the sister of the informant who was married with appellant Surendra Thakur on 27.4.1996 according to Hindu rites. It has been stated that in the marriage of the deceased Dharmanti Devi sufficient dowry was given by the informant. There was an agreement to give television and motor cycle was also there but due to financial crisis the same was not paid to the appellant and for which the informant 'ssister namely Dhanmanti Devi was being tortured and harassed by the accused/appellants. It has been stated that she had written several letters to the informant, informing about her harassment and torture done by her husband and inlaws. It has also been stated in the first information report that the deceased had revealed to the informant that she would be killed if motor cycle would not be given to them. On 10.5.1999 the informant received information that his sister was killed by the accused/appellants on 9.5.1999 and they had disposed of the dead body by burning the same with the help fo some unknown people of village Katahariya. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant under sections 304(B), 498(A) and 201 of the IPC and also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Ultimately, the trial concluded in the manner as indicated above. The appellants have pleaded not guilty and have stated that there was no demand of dowry and they had not tortured the deceased Dhanmanti Devi.