DILIP KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals arising out of one and same judgment. They have been heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The solitary appellant Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha in Cr. Appeal No. 393 of 2011, stood charged only for the offence under sections 120 B I.P.C. whereas, appellant nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, namely, Lal Mohan Rabidas, Gopal Rabidas, Bedamiya Devi and Bimli Devi in Cr. Appeal No. 448 of 2011, for the offence under sections 304 B and 120 B I.P.C. and appellant no.2 Hira Rabidas for the offence under sections 304 B and 498 A I.P.C. but the trial court, i.e, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Jamui vide judgment dated 23rd March, 2011 in Sessions Trial No. 686 of 2001 arising out of Lakshmipur (Gidhaur) P.S. Case No. 124 of 2000 convicted, both sets of the appellants for the offence under sections 304 B, 120B and 498 A I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under sections 304 B read with section 120 B I.P.C. and further sentenced all the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 448/2011, for three years under sections 498 A read with section 120B I.P.C. and they are also ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for six months, giving rise to the present appeals.

(3.) Prosecution case is based on the statement of Basanti Devi, P.W.7, recorded by S.P. Singh, S.I. Gidhaur P.S. on 11.10.2000 at 04 hours in presence of her son Tuntun Rabidas, P.W. 5, Niru Manjhi, P.W. 8 and Lato (not examined) is that her daughter deceased Suchita Devi was married in her child-hood with appellant Lal Mohan Rabidas and re-marriage (Gauna) was performed just five to six years before and she was aged about 25 years. Soon after re-marriage she was being brutally treated by her husband and in-laws for petty demands causing her to reside mostly at Maike. Roughly twenty days before she was brought by her husband on the assurance of good behavior. Just a day before the Informant in the evening at five on 10th October, 2000 learnt from one Shalik Rabidas, P.W. 6 about the deceased being injured and being provided concealed treatment by a doctor where she along with others arrived and found the treatment was going on by the appellant Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, but inspite of her request and attempt she was not permitting to even see her injured daughter though her in-laws and others were there. Some time thereafter the treating doctor (appellant) left the patient with intimation to shift her and immediately thereafter the Informant and others could visit the injured and found her dead. Further allegation is that her husband and in-laws in want of dowry demands caused her burn injuries by Kerosene oil and in league with doctor getting her treated there where she could die.