JITENDRA CHOUDHARY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant Jitendra Choudhary against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.09.2010 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 465 of 2008 convicting the appellant named above under Section 304(B), 201 of the I.P.C. and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, three years respectively with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nut shell as is evident from Fard -beyan (Exhibit -1) filed by Rajesh Kumar Thakur (PW -5) on 11.10.2006, disclosing therein that his sister Nutan Devi was married with Jitendra Choudhary (appellant) on 29.06.2001 and on that very time, they have gifted the articles according to their means. His sister had gone to her Sasural where, after some interval, began to face with torture and cruelty. Having been informed at the end of his sister, he had gone and brought his sister back. While his sister was staying at her Naihar, his brother in -law came and asked for Bidai. He had also threatened, in case Bidai is not effected, he will divorce and accordingly, Bidai was effected with heavy heart. After going to her Sasural, again his sister confronted with torture and cruelty in order to meet demand of dowry. His father time to time provided in order to prevent his sister from torture and cruelty, however, could not satisfy the greed. Again, they brought Nutan to their place. Subsequently thereof, as the conduct of his brother in -law was not cordial, an advocate notice was served whereupon his brother in -law came and then, Bidai was effected on 03.03.2005. During her stay, his sister begotten a daughter and on account thereof, they advanced demand of Rs. 50,000/ - failing which they became ruthless. In the month of August, 2006, his sister begotten a son. At that very time, he had gone to see his sister, but was not allowed. At the other hand, he was directed to bring Rs. 50,000/ - and thereafter only, he will be allowed to see his sister. Then, it has been alleged that in the night of 10.10.2006, he received telephonic information from an unknown that his sister has been murdered and her dead body has been disposed of. On 11.10.2006, he along with others came to place of his sister where they came to know that his sister has been murdered and her dead body has also been disposed of.

(3.) DEFENCE case as is evident from mode of cross -examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence. It has also been suggested that so alleged deceased was staying at her Naihar since before and the Naiharwala, in order to save their skin got this false case filed. In support thereof, also examined two DWs.