BINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10th March, 2003 passed by Sri Binod Mohan Prasad, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court II, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 23/01/211/86 (S.J.) whereby all the three appellants have been convicted under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Besides that, appellant no. 2 Pramod Kumar has also been convicted under Section 201 of the I.P.C. Out of three appellants, appellants Binod Kumar and Pramod Kumar have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 306 of the I.RC. whereas appellant Sheo Barati Devi has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 306 of the I.P.C. All the three appellants have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498A of the I.P.C. whereas appellant Pramod Kumar has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 of the I.RC. The learned trial court has further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as per the Fardbeyan of informant Anant Kumar (P.W. 4) recorded by S.I. R.J. Singh of Civil Lines RS. on 27.6.1985 at 12 hours at Civil Lines P.S., District Gaya, in brief, is that deceased Karuna Devi, daughter of Prem Narayan Singh, was his cousin sister. She was married to appellant no. 1 Binod Kumar, son of Late Jag Narain Mahto of village Khaneta, RS. Belaganj District Gaya about four years ago. After two years of the said marriage, Gauna was performed and deceased Karuna Devi went to her Sasural but thereafter appellant Binod Kumar started making the demand of Rs. 7,000/ - cash on the pretext that the said money is required for getting employment for him. It is alleged that he gave threat that in case of nonpayment of the amount he would not keep Karuna Devi with him. There is further allegation that due to non -payment of the aforesaid amount by the informants uncle, appellant Binod Kumar, his father, his younger brother Pramod Kumar (appellant no. 2) started assaulting Karuna Devi. It is further said that about one year ago, the abovenamed persons assaulted Karuna Devi resulting in fracture of Iter arms and thereafter they forced her to board on a Tata bound Bus where the informants uncle (father of Karuna Devi) was residing. Thereafter the informants uncle got Karuna Devi treated at Jamshedpur by a physician and after treatment of Karuna Devi and after everything becoming normal, the informants uncle brought Karuna Devi to her Sasurai about a month ago and since then Karuna Devi was living in her Sasurai. Further allegation is that on 26.6.1985 in the morning one person of village Khaneta came to the house of the informant and told him that in the previous night Jag Narain Mahto, his two sons Binod Kumar, Pramod Kumar and other members of the family of Jag Narain Mahto including female members had killed Karuna Devi by setting her on fire. He also told the informant that they had taken away the dead body from the village to Gaya for its cremation silently. Further allegation is that on getting the said information, the informant alongwith Gopal Singh, Mohan Singh and others went to Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya but they did not find Karuna Devi there and then he along with others went to Magah Medical Hospital, Gaya and again they did not find any trace of Karuan Devi there. It is further said that thereafter the informant alongwith the abovenamed persons went to cremation Ghat Gaya. He saw a funeral pyre burning in the Ghat where Jag Narain. Prasad, Pramod and one Devendra Kumar were present. On enquiry made by the informant, Jag Narain Mahto told him that Karuna Devi died of burn injuries but when the informant asked Jay Narain Mahto as to why he had performed cremation in so haste, he did not give any reply. It is further said that Karuna Devi had written several letters earlier regarding the demand of money by her inlaws and ill -treatment meted out to her by them due to non -fulfilment of the demand and also regarding the threats of killing her. The informant after making enquiry from the father in law of his deceased sister went to Civil Lines Police Station and gave his fardbeyan which was recorded by S.I., R.J. Singh of the said RS. After recording of the fardbeyan the same was sent to Belganj RS. for institution of the case where on receipt of the fardbeyan, Belaganj P.S. Case No. 66/85 under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and investigation was started. However, after completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted under sections 498A, 306 and 201 of the I.P.C. against the appellants and two others, namely, Jag Marain Mahto and Savitri Devi but as Jag Narain land letter wMahto and Savitri Devi died during the pendency of the case, as such proceeding against them was dropped and all the three appellants were put on trial and were convicted and sentenced to undergo vigorous imprisonment, as stated above.

(3.) THE defence, as it appears from the trend of the cross -examination and the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the appellants were falsely implicated in this case but in support of this contention, the defence has not adduced any oral evidence. However, the defence has brought the certified copy of the ordersheet dated 28.3.87 passed in Title Suit No. 164/78 (Ext. A) and the certified copy of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 164/78 (Ext.B) in order to establish enmity with P.W 6.