RAM LAKHAN RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appellant have filed the appeal against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 1985 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. Both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC, and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for one year under Section 302/34, IPC. They have been also sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 201, IPC. Sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant No. 1 Ram Lakhan Rai is father of the deceased Bhikhani Kumari and appellant No. 2 Dauna Devi is her step mother. The case was instituted on a written report of Siya Devi, mother of the deceased, given to the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi. On the basis of the written report a formal FIR (Ext. 1) was drawn in this case. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against five accused persons, including these two appellants and during trial charges were framed under the aforesaid sections against them. Three accused were acquitted by the trial Court and these two appellants have been convicted and sentenced as above.

(2.) IN short the case of the prosecution is that Siya Devi, the informant of this case and the mother of the deceased was married with Ram Lakhan Rai and out of their wedlock the deceased Bhikhani Kumari was born. Thereafter her husband (Ram Lakhan Rai) fell in bad company and meted inhuman treatment of the informant, as a result of which she went to her maike. In spite of the efforts made by the informant, there was no effect on her husband and finally on 9.2.1981 accused Ram Lakhan Rai threw her out of the house. Accused Ram Lakhan Rai married Dauna Devi, who is his second wife. Then the informant filed a criminal case in which Ram Lakhan Rai had absconded. The informant had also filed a case of maintenance under Section 125, Cr PC against her husband and the appellant No. 1 was ordered to pay maintenance but he did not comply with the order and the informant filed a Misc. Case for its execution. Ext. 9 is certified copy of the order of Misc. Case No. 8 of 1981, Siya Devi V/s. Ram Lakhan Rai. under Section 125, Cr PC. Thereafter accused Ram Lakhan Rai agreed to keep the informant and her daughter and he started keeping them and he pressurized the informant to withdraw the case which she had instituted. When the informant did not withdraw the case, accused Ram Lakhan Rai instituted a case on her witnesses Dr. Ambika Singh and Shital Sah for abducting the informant and her daughter to put pressure on her. On 26.7.1984 the informant went to her maike and she left her daughter Bhikhani Kumari (deceased) in the house of her husband. On 31.7.1984 one Kishori Kumhar informed her that her husband had either concealed her daughter somewhere or murdered her. The informant came to her husband&aposs house and searched her daughter. On enquiry, she learnt from Bishuni Kumhar, Kishori Kumhar (PW 4) and Ram Chandra Sah (PW 14) that the accused Ram Lakhan Rai, Bindeshwar Thakur, Ram Ekbal Rai and Mahadeo Mandal were talking among themselves to remove Bhikhani so that the case which had been instituted for kidnapping may not fail. Ram Prasad Rai and Ram Lochan Rai had seen the accused taking away a child aged about ten years alongwith others and Dauna Devi was following them and on enquiry Ram Lakhan Rai had told that he was taking Bhikhani for curing her of snake bite and thereafter Bhikhani was not seen in the village.

(3.) IT was argued by the learned lawyer for the appellants that there is no eye -witness in this case and the prosecution witnesses are unreliable and they have made contradictory statements. In this case 15 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 Bhikhari Jha and PW 2 Anil Kumar Karn are formal witnesses, who have proved Exts. 1, 2 and 3. PW 7 Anup Sah, PW 10 Parmeshwar Mishra, PW 14 Ramchandra Sah and PW 15 Ram Lochan Singh have been tendered. PW 9 Subdhi Devi and PW 11 Bharat Raut have been declared hostile by the prosecution.