SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction recorded under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and the lady appellant no. 1, namely, Shanti Devi (who is now dead and the appeal with respect to her has already been abated vide order dated 04.09.2013) was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years as awarded by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah on 20th Day of August, 1996 in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1989 / 57 of 1991 arising out of Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 72 of 1987.

(2.) THE prosecution case as reveal from Exhibit-3, the written application of one Rajendra Prasad Singh @ Kaviji (P.W.7) dated 12.09.1997 is that a day before i.e. on 11.09.1987 when he visited the house of Radhika Devi (P.W. 5) i.e. his aunt-in-law (Fufuya Sas), aged about 50 - 55 years being issueless residing alone having 10 - 12 acres of land besides cash and other articles, found her missing. On query learnt through co-villagers, Devendra Singh, Ramadhin Singh, Ishlok Singh (P.W. 1) and Most. Siyawati Kunyar (not examined) that the appellants besides one Prabas Singh on 01.09.1987 (Tuesday) at about 10.00 a.m. took her for Deoghar, but on 03.09.1987 all, except the victim Radhika Devi, returned and at about 4.00 p.m. after unlocking the door of her (victim) house took away grains and other articles and he (informant) raised suspicion of her abduction, confinement and killing. He further enquired at Registry Office, Nawadah, where he learnt from Nawal Kishore Singh and Ramashray Singh that on 02.09.1987 the miscreants had kept the victim in senseless state near the Registry Office and her thumb impression was obtained on some papers, on basis whereof, the deceased appellant, Shanti Devi accepted execution of some documents before the Registrar, but thumb impression etc. were being taken out of Registry Office with the help of one Surendra an employee of the Registry Office.

(3.) IT was contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the case has falsely been instituted by the informant, who himself had greedy eyes over the lands of the victim and just to overcome the valid execution of transfer deeds by the lady after taking her in his control got the case instituted. The witnesses examined rather none else than the persons had inimical terms with the appellants and on material points contradicted each other. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the findings on the ground mentioned in the judgment and also submitted that the recovery of the victim, who was tied with cot, roughly ten days after institution of the case from the house of appellant no. 3, Dilip Singh by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8) itself is sufficient to indicate the wrongs being committed with her and apart from other witnesses she also has not only in her statement recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, which was recorded as her dying declaration taking into consideration her pitiable condition at the relevant time, but also as P.W. 5 has consistently stated about the miseries faced by her, consequently, no interference is required in the finding of the court below.