PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal (SJ) No.525 of 2011 wherein Pramod Kumar happens to be the sole appellant, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 278 of 2011 wherein in Jaywanti Devi happens to be sole appellant and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 480 of 2011 wherein Tanik Singh happens to be the sole appellant commonly originate against the judgment dated 23.02.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 / 2 of 2011 as well as 424 of 2009 / 6 of 2011 convicting the appellant named above for an offence punishable under Section 498(A), 304(B)/34 IPC, 201 IPC and sentence dated 24.02.2011 whereby and whereunder appellant Tanik Singh and Jaywanti Devi each have been sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years under Section 498(A) IPC, R.I. for 7 years under Section 304(B)/34 IPC, R.I. for two years as well as also fined Rs.10,000/ - in default thereof to undergo sentence of six month additionally, appellant Pramod Kumar sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Se ction 304(B) IPC, R.I. for two years as well as also fined Rs.10,000/ - in default thereof to undergo imprisonment of six months additionally under Section 201 of the IPC. With a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by Ad Vth, hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, accordingly been heard analogously and are being disposed of by common judgment.

(2.) INFORMANT Awadhesh Kumar filed written report disclosing therein that his younger sister Anita Devi was married with Pramod Kumar on 26 -04 -1999 and accordingly, she had gone to her Sasural. After spenting five days at her Sasural, his sister Anita Devi returned back to his place and then thereafter , her Duragman was effected in the year 2002. At the time of Duragman Pramod Kumar had advanced demand of a Rajdoot motorcycle as well as Rs.50,000/ - which was beyond their means and on account thereof, her father -in -law, mother -in -law, sister -in -law, husband began to torture. After coming to know about the same they have gone to her Sasural and shown their inability to fulfill their demand as well as to take p ity thereupon which was ignored by them. Subsequently, they were informed by one Ram Padarath Singh, father -in -law of his younger brother Shankar Singh with regard to commission of murder of Anita Devi in the night of 02 -03 - 2004 and disposing of the dead body whereupon they came and found the allegation true.

(3.) IT is evident from the lower court record of both the cases that in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 / 2 of 2011 altogether fourteen PWs have been examined as well as Ext. -1 ­ Signature of informant over fardbeyan, Ext.2 to 2/D­Letters script by deceased Anita Devi were made an exhibit while in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009 / 6 of 2011 only six PWs have been examined while four exhibits, Ext. - 1­Signature of informant over fardbeyan, Ext -2 to 2/D­ Letters written by Anita Devi, Ext -3­Deposition of part I.O. examined as PW -11 in Sessions Trial no.98 of 2008, Ext. -3/A ­ C.C. of deposition of part I.O. PW -14 examined in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 have been examined. It is also apparent that Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 five DWs have been examined while in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009 seven DWs have been examined along with an Ext -A on behalf of defence. It is also evident from the lower court record that in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2008 the charge happens to be with regard to offence committed at village - Najardih, P.S. -Nawada, District -Nawada while in Sessions Trial No.424 of 2009 the charge has been framed for the offence committed in between village -Barsa, P.S. -Ariari, District -Sheikhpura, as well as Najardih, P.S. -Nawada, District -Nawada.