SANDHYA DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 9.2.2001 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 743 of 1998/Tr. No. 93 of 1998 by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj by which all the three appellants have been convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Sandhya Das and Amresh Das @ Ashok Das have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years for conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Symli Das @ Shyamli Das has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years for conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code with a direction that sentences passed against the appellants shall run concurrently.

(2.) The FIR was drawn in this case on the basis of Complaint Case No. 99-C/ 97 filed by Ashok Kumar Das, father of the deceased, on 25.2.1997. The complaint petition was sent to the police under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure and on that basis Kishanganj Police Case No. 34 of 1997 under Sections 304-B and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against six persons. In the complaint petition, it was the case of the complainant that he had married his daughter Jhunu Das @ Sonu with Amresh Das @ Ashok Das two years back according to Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the complainant had given dowry according to his capacity. After marriage for three months relationship of his daughter was cordial with the accused persons but subsequently they started torturing her for demand of dowry i.e., they demanded television, cow and Rs. 3,000/- in cash. The daughter of the complainant informed to her father, mother and uncle but the complainant could not meet the demands due to his poverty. Jhunu Das was being tortured physically and mentally by the accused persons. On the date of occurrence all the accused persons mentioned in the complaint petition except accused No. Yogmaya Singh sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of Jhunu Das and set fire to her body and when she started shouting, the neighbours came and they witnessed the occurrence. The accused persons just in order to show their concern took Jhunu Das to a nearby hospital. In the hospital, accused No. 6, Yogmaya Singh, who was aunt (mausi) of husband of the deceased, was working as nurse and she was pressurising Jhunu Das to give some statement before the police and after recording of her statement by the police, she (Yogmaya Singh) gave her water to drink which was against the medical science due to which Jhunu Das died. It is said that the persons who were present there objected this act of Yogmaya Singh but she did not take notice of that. From Kishangaj hospital Jhunu Das was referred to Siliguri hospital where she died. The dead body of Jhunu Das was brought to Kishanganj by the brother of the complainant after post-mortem examination and institution of U.D. Case at Matigara PS. at Kishanganj last rites to the dead body of Jhunu Das was performed. The complainant was in mental agony and he was also under impression that first information report might have been instituted on the basis of U.D. Case and he did not take any step for institution of the FIR. Subsequently after having learnt that no FIR has been instituted, on 25.2.1997 the complainant filed the complaint case. The said complaint petition was forwarded to Kishanganj Police Station for institution of a case and after instituting the case, Officer-in-charge of Kishanganj P.S. investigated the case and on completion of investigation submitted charge- sheet against five accused persons. Out of five accused, two accused namely Uma Das and Manka Das after inquiry were found Juvenile and their case was transferred to Juvenile Court and case of three accused i.e., the appellants was committed to the Court of Session. After trial, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) The defence of the appellants is that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The deceased was not tortured by them and her death was an accidental death.