RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH four persons of the in -laws house of deceased Poonam Devi had been put on trial on accusation of causing dowry death and disposing of the dead body without information to her parents, appellant alone suffered conviction under Sections 304 -B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, others having been acquitted of the charges by the Trial Court. As for the sentence awarded on these two counts, appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on the first count and on the second count, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years with rider that both the sentences shall run concurrently. At this juncture, it would be convenient to notice salient features of the prosecution case.

(2.) Poonam Devi was wedded to the appellant some time in the year 1992. She came to her in - laws ' house in the year 1993 and before second marriage, by communication made through a letter, purportedly written by the appellant, to the brother of the deceased, demand for provision of television and accessories was made. As parents were not possessed of sufficient means and had not been financially affluent, they could not make provisions of dowry asked by the appellant. When some persons came from her in -laws ' house to take her back to their house, Poonam was not permitted to go with them, as husband had not come to take her with him. Subsequently, when appellant came, mother of the deceased made all entreaties before him for not torturing her and it is alleged that the appellant took the deceased to his house cautioning them that in case provision of television and accessories is not been made by them, Poonam shall not return alive. Some time on 16th October, 1997 Bhunesh Kumar (P.W. 4) had been to the in -laws ' house of Poonam when some sort of evasive reply had been given by her mother -in -law about absence of Poonam and he was told that she had been to village Sikha for treatment. Shortly, therefore, on 17th October, 1997, only a day thereafter, Hari Kishore Singh (P.W. 6), brother of the deceased, who also happened to be maker of Fardbeyan was informed by two persons of village Jatiahi about tragic end of Poonam in in -laws ' house whose dead body too had been cremated. It was alleged that Hari Kishore Singh, shortly on receipt of tragic news, sent Santosh Kumar Singh (P.W. 1) and Pramod Singh (P.W. 2) to village Jatiahi for confirmation of death of Poonam and on their return to village, they confirmed her death. Brother of the deceased took recourse to public authority and set the criminal law in motion. As usual investigation followed during which Police, in the process of collection of evidences, recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, seized ashes of the dead body of Poonam from cremation ground, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge -sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, State examined seven witnesses to establish charges against the accused.

(3.) DEFENCE of the appellant and also those who were put on trial along with him, was that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication. Explicit defence of the appellant, and others was that since Poonam had not been blessed with child after marriage, she was upset and more than often she used to leave her in -laws ' house. Other defence of the appellant and others at trial was that Poonam died in house of her parents, and without good excuse, a false case had been instituted against them for no good reasons. Defence too examined two witnesses, namely, Sudishth Singh (D.W. 1) and Sitaram Singh (D.W. 2) ostensibly to counter accusation attributed to the appellant about demand of dowry and torture meted out to the deceased. They rather claimed themselves to be relation of Hari Kishore Singh, and countering accusations attributed to the appellant they stated that Poonam had died in her parents ' house, pursuant to which they were informed by Hari Kishore Singh about her death, However, as has been noticed, though Trial Court acquitted other accused persons, put on trial, recorded finding of guilt against the appellant alone on the same set of evidence which is also one of the criticisms that had been made at Bar against the findings recorded by the Court below.