HARENDRA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.2.2003 and order dated 21.2.2003 passed by Sri Narendra Prasad Singh, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 647 of 2000 whereby he has been pleased to convict appellants Harendra Choudhary and Hiralal Choudhary for the offence under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 of the IPC. He has further been pleased to direct that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as per the written report (Ext. 1) of the informant Sriniwas Choudhary filed on 22.3.2000, in brief, is that his sister Panchratana was married with appellant Harendra Choudhary on 12.12.1999 according to the Hindu religion. After the said marriage she went to her sasural and stayed there for three months. Thereafter her Roksadi took place and she was brought to her naihar. Further case is that the brother-in-law of appellant Harendra Choudhary came to house of the informant and asked the informant to fix 12.3.2000 as the date of Donga (Roksadi) which was objected to by the informant and his father. The informant as well as his father requested Hiralal Choudhary to fix some other date in the month of Baishakh on the pretext to arrange money for Roksadi but even then they did not agree and on 12.2.2000 appellants Harendra Choudhary and Hiralal Choudhary along with some other persons of their village came to the house of the informant on a Tempo and demanded Roksadi of his sister. They also demanded T.V. and one she-calf but the informant and his father expressed their inability to give T.V. and she-calf at that time and promised them to give both the articles later on. This caused annoyance to Harendra Choudhary and Hiralal Choudhary and so they did not take meals in the night. Further case is that on 13.3.2000 Roksadi of the informant's sister took place and on that date Hiralal Choudhary and Harendra Choudhary told that since T.V. and she-calf were not given, as such he (informant) would not be able to see her sister again. Further case is that on 21.3.2000 Ram Narayan Singh, who had worked as the mediator in the marriage of the informant's sister with appellant Harendra Choudhary, came to his house and told him that his sister had been burnt to death by her-in-laws. On getting this information, the informant along with his parents went to village Udaipur (sasural of his sister) where they were informed by the villagers that the appellants along with others had killed his sister by strangulating her neck and thereafter they had cremated the dead body on 17.3.2000. Further case is that appellants Harendra Choudhary and Hiralal Choudhary and other villagers of village Udaipur forced the informant and others to board on a jeep and to return back to their home. They also threatened that if they lodged any case they would be killed. Further case is that the informant's father became unconscious but the informant anyhow came to the police station and submitted the written report on the basis of which Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 17/2000 was instituted.

(3.) After investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against five accused persons and on the basis of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and all the five accused persons were committed to the Court of Session for facing trial. After commitment the charge under Sections 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the five accused persons on 5.7.2001. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried and thus, they were put on trial and by the impugned judgment and order, the appellants Harendra Choudhary and Hiralal Choudhary were convicted but Jagmato Kuer, Mina Devi and Sabita Devi were not found guilty and they were acquitted.