BHAGWAT MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 16.3.1992 passed in Sessions Trial No.4 of 1985 - 87 by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, ' whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the appellants Bhagwat Mahto and Tetari Devi @ Sharda Devi @ Sumitra Devi guilty for the charges under Section 304, IPC (instead under Sections 302/34) 201, IPC and also under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted and sentenced both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304, IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201, IPC and imprisonment for one year under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further ordered that

(2.) AS it appears from written report (Ext. 2) of Yugal Prasad, who happens to be father of deceased Madhuri Kumari and examined as PW 7, the prosecution story relates to an occurrence, in which, his daughter Madhuri Kumari was done to death by her in -laws. As per informant, his daughter Madhuri Kumari (deceased) was married to Sudhir Kumar, son of Bhagwat Mahto (appellant No. 1) of village Vijaygarh (Parwalpur) under Hilsa Police Station. In the last month of July, his daughter along with his niece had gone to Angel Girls Training School for appearing at practical examination. The informant was also there. The informant stated that when he had gone out for purchasing articles his son -in -law Sudhir Kumar and his cousin Mahendra Kumar took away his daughter on the same day of practical examination i.e. on 25.7.1983 when the practical examination was postponed and he had given information of taking away of his daughter to Budha Colony police station. Later on the niece of informant came back home but his daughter Madhuri Kumari was detained in her sasural. Daughter of informant was not allowed to appear in the examination on 26.7.1983. Informant alleged that his daughter was not properly treated by her father -in -law Bhagwat Mahto, his wife, his daughter Indu Kumari and Bhaisoor Suresh Prasad, whose wife used to say the daughter of informant to bring Rs. 5,000/ - from Naihar towards remaining dowry. Informant stated that no dowry was due and his son -in -law was in service and at the instance of family members he was desiring to marry second time. Informant further stated that he wanted to bring his daughter back but in -laws of his daughter did not allow informant to bring his daughter back. When informant along with his brother Rajendra Prasad (PW 6) came to Hilsa for coming to Vijaygarh on 19.10.1983 he came to know that in -laws of his daughter Bhagwat Mahto (appellant No. 1), Gurusharan Mahto, Suresh Prasad, Vijay Prasad, Sarjug Prasasd, wife of Bhagwat Mahto (appellant No. 2), daughter of appellant No. 1 Indu Kumari together committed murder of his daughter and burnt the dead body near the village instead taking dead body to ganges and informant was also not given any information about the death. Informant further stated that when he went to Vijaygarh for getting further information one Mangal Kahar (not examined) told him that his daughter Madhuri Kumari was done to death by her in -laws. When the informant wanted to meet his samdhi Bhagwat Mahto (appellant No. 1) he entered into his house and closed the doors from inside and did not become ready to talk to informant. Informant stated that people of nearby village had given information that the daughter of the informant was done to death by her in -laws.

(3.) LEARNED 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda framed charges against as many as seven accused persons, namely, Bhagwat Mahto (appellant No. 1), Gurusharan Mahto (acquitted), Suresh Prasad (acquitted), Vijay Prasad (acquitted), Tetari Devi (appellant No. 2), Indu Kumari (acquitted) and Sarjug Prasad (acquitted) under Sections 302/34, IPC, under Section 201, IPC and also under Sections 4/5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and thereafter trial of the case was taken up.