RAJESH RAVIDAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, putting challenge to the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dtd. 7/7/2018, passed by learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 673 of 2017, 125 of 2017 arising out of Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_96_LAWS(PAT)2_2024_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) The brother of the deceased, Pramod Kumar Das (PW-4) is the informant whose written report, addressed to the Officer-In-Charge of Pakaribaraw (Nawada), is the basis for registration of the concerned Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016 on 25/3/2016 disclosing commission of offence punishable under Sec. 304B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC for short). The informant alleged that the deceased was married to the appellant Rajesh Ravidas of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1075 of 2018, nearly one and a half years ago. He alleged cruelty meted out to the deceased by her in-laws including these appellants for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, which they used to make. Despite intervention of Panches, no compromise could be reached. He also alleged that once his sister had called him on mobile belonging to his cousin Ranjeet (not examined) alleging demand of dowry and she being subjected to cruelty, whereupon the informant's brother Subodh Kumar and his nephew Navlesh Kumar (both not examined) had gone to her matrimonial home to bring her back to her paternal home (maikaa). The husband of the deceased (Rajesh Ravidas, an appellant) and his father Surendra Ravidas, who is also the appellant, did not allow the deceased to go to her maikaa. The appellant Surendra Ravidas (father-in-law of the deceased) and his wife (mother-in-law of the deceased) had asked them to come after Holi with money whereafter only they would allow the deceased to go to her maikaa. On 24/3/2016, the informant received a call on his cousin's mobile phone that the victim had been killed by poisoning. On reaching the matrimonial home of the deceased, he found her dead body lying. Upon inquiry, the informant and his family members learnt that the deceased had been poisoned, which led to her death. These appellants and the relatives, he alleged, had fled away from their house.

(3.) The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. During the postmortem examination, no external injury was found visible on the dead body. The cause of death could not be ascertained. The viscera was kept for chemical analysis and was sent for forensic examination. The FSL recorded following finding in its report (Exhibit-5):-