RAM CHANDER SAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.4.1992 and order dated 7.4.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 101 of 1989 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo RI for 10 years each under Section 304B, RI for 7 years each under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for 6 months each under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal that on 9.7.1987 at 6.00 p.m. informant Shiv Prasad Sah (PW 9) went to Nanpur Police Station and got his fardbeyan recorded by SI Tarkeshwar Sharon (PW 10) stating therein that his sister deceased Prem Sheela was married about 4 years before to appellant Ram Chandra Sah. After marriage, appellants started torturing the informant and his family members on account of demand of dowry and for not getting dowry they sent Prem Sheela to her 'naiher' and informed that although they had received wrist watch and radio at the time of marriage but had not received cycle and one tola of gold and unless those articles were given to them they would not come for taking Prem Sheela to her 'sasural'. About one and half years thereafter, Bilayati Sah, father of appellant Ram Chandra Sah came to the house of the informant and made demand for cycle and gold. Father of informant fulfilled the demand of cycle making the promise to fulfil the demand of gold in future after making arrangement of money. Bilayati Sah took Prem Sheela to his house. 6-7 days prior to giving fardbeyan by informant before police, he received information from the nephew of Bilayati Sah that his sister Prem Sheela had died on 22.6.1987. Informant then along with Birendra Kumar Pandy (PW 8), Bihari Sah (not examined) and Awadhesh Sah (PW 7) went to the village of sasural of his sister where he met Bilayati Sah and when he enquired about his sister Bilayati Sah told that she died of vomiting and dysentery. When informant asked from Bilayati Sah why information of this fact was not given to him, Bilayati Sah could not give any satisfactory reply. When the informant moved in the village he came to know that because of non-fulfilment of demand of gold, Bilayati Sah, appellants Ram Chandra Sah and Jarlahia Devi as also other family members committed the murder of Prem Sheela and thereafter cremated her dead body. Informant further stated that one week prior to occurrence Bilayati Sah had sent information to the house of informant that in case, demand of gold was not fulfilled Prem Sheela would be killed.

(3.) SHIV Prasad Sah (PW 9), the informant, is the brother of deceased. He has said that deceased was married about 4 years prior to occurrence to appellant Ram Chandra Sah and his father had given a wrist watch and a radio at the time of marriage and demand for cycle and one tola gold could not be fulfilled and when his sister went to her 'sasurul' she was being tortured on account of non-fulfilment of demand of aforesaid' articles and after a month his sister was brought to his house by her 'sasural' people who put the condition that they would take back the deceased with them only on fulfilment of their demands. He has further said that one and half year thereafter a cycle was given and about gold his father made promise that lie would make arrangement of giving gold in future and thereafter Bilayati Sah took his sister to his house and some days thereafter from the nephew of Bilayati Sah he came to know that his sister had died. He then along with PWs 7 and 8 went to the 'sasural' of his sister where he met Bilayati Sah and when he inquired about his sister Bilayati Sah told him that she died of vomiting and dysentery and when he inquired why information was not given to him he did not get any reply. He has further said that when he moved in the village for collecting more information he came to know that because of non-fulfilment of demand of gold made by appellants his sister had been killed by them and Chhedi Sah, Reban Sah and Bilayati Sah by pressing her neck and appellants and their aforesaid companions cremated the dead body. He has further said that one week prior to occurrence Bilayati Sah sent information that if his demand was not fulfilled deceased would be killed. In para 3 of his evidence informant has said that after receipt of information of death of his sister he went to the village of her 'sasural' on the same day and returned back to his village at about 8-9 p.m. and he consulted his father who advised him to ascertain the real fact and thereafter he took 6-7 days for collecting the information. He clearly stated that he made inquiry from 15-20 persons but he could not give name of any one of them. Admittedly, he is not an eye-witness on the point of pressing the neck of deceased by appellants and their companions. In his evidence, he has simply stated that he came to know in village that his sister had been killed by strangulation. As stated above, he has not named anybody who put claim as eye-witness on the point of strangulation. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest the cause of death of deceased.