ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants have preferred this appeal against the conviction for the offence under section 304 B, 201 I.P.C. and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced respectively for R.I. ten years, five years and six months with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of which further S.I. for one and half months, by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran on 16 th August, 2001 in Sessions Trial No. 145 of 1992 arising out of Revilganj P.S. Case No. 24 of 1991, G.R. No. 636 of 1991. By the same judgment husband of the deceased and respectively brother and son of the appellant Manoj Kumar Singh was also convicted and sentenced, but due to his death during pendency of another Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 349 of 2001 the same has been disposed of as abated and another accused facing trial, namely, Prabhunath Singh was acquitted.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, as revealed from Ext. 2 written (typed) application of P.W.6 Anandi Singh submitted to the Officer Incharge, Revilganj on 21st March, 1991 is that, his niece Baby Kumari daughter of his younger brother Vijoy Kumar, P.W.3 was married in the month of June, 1990 with the deceased- convict Manoj Kumar, but she was being tortured by her in- laws persuading demand of motorcycle and just four days before on 10 th March, 1991 when the Informant had gone to their place with a request to permit the deceased to go for an hour and meet her mother, P.W.2 who had arrived at Chapra, but request was turned down with an specific assertion unless motorcycle is provided she will not be permitted to meet her mother. Any how Informant could meet his niece there and found she was depressed and weak but she also intimated about ill treatment for the Bike. The Informant immediately intimated his brother in writing through messenger and in the morning he could know that she has been done to death and dead bodies were concealed. There appears no date either typed or any signature of typist with date or even date with signature of the Informant, but in the light of statement in para-2 that he met his niece just four days before on 10th March, 1991 it may be treated that this written application was got prepared (typed) on 14th March, 1991 but handed over to police station only on 21st March, 1991, i.e. seven days after it was ready.

(3.) IN order to substantiate the charges, prosecution has produced altogether nine witnesses besides following documents:-