VIJAY KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four appellants before the Court are related to each other. Appellant No. 2 is the father of appellant No. 1 and brother of Appellant No. 3. Appellant No. 4 is one of their agnates. All of them stand convicted under Ss. 304-B, 498-A/ 34 and 201/34 of the Penal Code and S. 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. For the offence of dowry death they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life; for subjecting the victim to cruelty they are sentenced to R. I. for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- and on default in payment of fine to under go R. I. for six months; for causing disappearance of the evidence of the offences committed by them they are sentenced to R. I. for three years and fine of Rs. 2000.00 and on default in payment of fine R. I. for six months and finally for taking dowry they are sentenced to undergo R, I. for five years and fine of Rs. 20,000.00 and on default in payment of fine R. I. for three years. The sentences of imprisonment are directed by the trial Court to run concurrently.

(2.) The victim of the offences committed by the appellants was Tulsi Devi alias Bachia Devi who was married to appellant No. 1.

(3.) The case against the appellants was instituted on the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by Jagdeo Yadav (P. W. 8) at Paraiya P. S. on 13-3-1997 at 5 p.m. The informant, Jagdeo Yadav was the father of the victim Bachia Devi. In the F. I. R. he stated that the marriage of his daughter aged about twenty- twenty one years was solemnised according to the Hindu rites five years ago with Vijay Kumar Yadav (Appellant No. 1), son of Chhatradhari Yadav (Appellant No. 2) of village Kosdihra, P. S. Paraiya, in the district of Gaya and Gauna took place two years before the institution of the case. Since then his daughter lived at her Sasural with her husband where she gave birth to a son who was about eight months old at that time. After the Gauna his son-in-law Vijay Kumar Yadav and Samdhi started demanding in dowry money in cash, a motor cycle and a TV and frequently beat his daughter in connection with their demands. When the informant came to learn about it he went to them to sort out the matter. He alleged that his son-in-law Vijay Kumar Yadav, Samdhi Chhatradhari Yadav and their agnates Shall Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav threatened him that in case he did not give the money, his daughter will not be allowed to live in peace. He then spent Rs. 40,000.00 for constructing a house for them, of which the roof was left to be cast at the time he made the statement. Even then the harassment continued since apart from money in cash the demand was also for a motor cycle and a TV and for that the accused continued to oppress his daughter. He further stated that in connection with their demand his daughter was beaten up on 11-3-1997 when she went to his house and narrated to him the entire story. But on the same day his son- in-law went to his (informant's) village along with one of his friends and brought back his daughter to his home at village Kosdihra. He further stated that on 13-3-1997 (the date on which he was making the report) he was on duty at Railway Power House, Gaya when at about three in the afternoon his son Nand Kishore Yadav informed that his daughter was killed and was also cremated by her Sasural people. On getting the information he went to his Samdhi's house at village Kosdihra but found that everyone was absconding from there. He went around the village and made enquiries on the basis of which he came to learn that in the previous night his daughter was killed by his (i) son- in-law Vijay Kumar Yadav, (ii) Chhatradhari Yadav, (iii) Shail Yadav, (iv) Ram Chandra Yadav, all sons of Bishun Yadav and (v) Kanhai Yadav son of Gobardhan Yadav, and was clandestinely cremated by them at the village cremation ground. On getting the information about the occurrence his son Nand Kishore Yadav went there but he fled away on seeing the five accused named above along with some other unknown people burning the body of his sister. The informant further stated that earlier also attempts were made to kill his daughter by pressing her neck. In conclusion he stated that his daughter was killed by her Sasural people in connection with their demand for money and a TV. She was killed by pressing her neck and in order to conceal the body, it was clandestinely burnt. In this regard he stated that his house was only at a distance of four kilometers but no information was given to him. The statement was read out to him and finding it correctly recorded he put his signature on it. (That was later marked in Court as Ext. 1).