SARYU SHARMA @ SURYU MISTRY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction for the offence under sections 304 B of Indian Penal Code and section of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and three months respectively for both the offences which are to run concurrently as awarded on 4th January, 2011 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 772 of 2009 arising out of Rousanganj P.S. Case No. 14 of 2006.

(2.) The prosecution has come out with the case as revealed from the written application of the Informant Girish Mistry, P.W. 4 dated 21st Aprl, 2006 is that his second daughter was married with Rajesh Sharma, appellant No. 2 son of Saryu Sharma @ Suryu Mistry, appellant no.1 on 7th May, 2005. Since after marriage there was continued demand of Rs. 50,000/- and one sewing machine and after ten days before the daughter also sent a letter indicating renewal of such demand. And on 18.04.2006 through appellant no.1 one information was received about illness of Informant's daughter who arrived at their place and learnt from the villagers that they have already proceeded for Gaya. On 19.04.2006 he arrived there at Magadh Medical College and Hospital, Gaya and found his daughter burnt dead. Subsequently, he could learn she was killed by the appellants. The police after institution of the case and completing investigation submitted charge sheet. Consequently, the appellants faced trial for the offence under sections 304 B/34 I.P.C. and D.P. Act.

(3.) To substantiate charges the prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses besides following documentary evidence:- Ext. 1- Signature on written report of Informant. Ext. 2- Signature of Informant on Protest Complaint. Ext. 3- P.M. Report. No oral or documentary evidence except Ext. A alleged fardbeyan of the Informant said to be recorded at Magadh Medical College and Hospital, Gaya admitted under section 294 Cr.P.C. was produced in defence. However, considering the materials available, trial court finding the appellants guilty convicted and sentenced them in the manner afore-stated giving rise to the present appeal.