NIRAJ TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. He has further been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. However, it has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as alleged in the first information report by the informant, Dhurandhar Pandey, is that he got his daughter married with one Niraj Tiwary on 27.4.2009. On 20.3.2011 he learnt that the in -laws of his daughter, Rinki Devi has done her to death and has disposed of the dead body by burning it, on which the informant reached the house of Dhrub Tiwary, father of Niraj Tiwary, resident of village Lachhanawata, Tiwari Tola and then he found that Rinki Devi and her in -laws are missing then from the neighbourers he learnt that his daughter has been done to death by Niraj Tiwari, Dhrub Tiwary, Dhiraj Tiwary, Sandhya Devi, Ranju Devi, Pappu Pandey and Dinanath Patel along with 5 -6 unknown persons and for causing disappearance of the evidence of the offence to screen the offence, have burnt the dead body of his daughter and disposed of the same by burning. The further case is that after the marriage there was demand of motorcycle and golden chain as dowry and when he shown his inability to satisfy the demand then the accused subjected her to cruelty and this fact was used to be disclosed by the victim to him and her mother. The further case is that on 19.3.2011 in the morning his son -in -law, Niraj Tiwari, the appellant and his brother Dhiraj Tiwari came with the child of his daughter and kept the child of the victim and under a conspiracy in the same night done her to death in the greed of dowry and burnt the dead body to screen the evidence.

(3.) DURING the trial 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution who are, P.W. 1 Anup Pandey, son of the informant, P.W. 2 Vinod Kumar Pandey, P.W.3 Sanjay Kumar Pandey, P.W.4 Babu Saheb Pandey, P.W. 5 Madhusudan Chaturvedi, P.W.6 Dhurandhar Pandey, the informant, who is also the father of the victim, P.W. 7 Punam Devi, the mother of the victim, P.W.8 Bisheshwar Nath Tiwary, however, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution and P.W.9 Ram Narayan Singh, the Investigation Officer. P.W.1 supported the prosecution regarding demand of dowry and subjecting cruelty. P.W.2 has also stated that Rinki Devi had come to the house of her father and she was telling her father regarding the demand and subjecting to cruelty. P.W. 3 has also supported the prosecution case regarding her marriage solemnized on 27.4.2009 and there was demand and subjecting cruelty as the victim used to say on telephone regarding the demand and subjecting cruelty. P.W. 4 has also supported the prosecution case regarding marriage and subjecting cruelty. However, P.W. 5, the maternal uncle of the victim has come to support the prosecution case but from his evidence it appears that he is a hear say witness and he learnt about the same from others. P.W. 6, the informant, has also supported the prosecution case regarding the marriage, demand and subjecting cruelty and he learnt about the victim being done to death and then he went to the house of the informant and found the accused persons missing from the house and on inquiry he learnt that the victim has been done to death and the dead body was disposed of by burning it on 20.3.2011, whereas, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 19.3.2011. P.W. 7 is the mother of the victim and has supported the prosecution case stating that the victim used to disclose on telephone regarding the demand and subjecting to cruelty. P.W. 8 is Bisheshwar Nath Tiwary. He has come to depose that he had given Rs. 5,000/ - to Niraj Tiwari for treatment of his wife and the Doctor of Bettiah has referred the victim and it appears that he has come to support the defence version and thus this witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross -examined and hence this witness has discredited by the prosecution. P.W.9 is the I.O. who conducted the investigation and recorded the statements. P.W. 10, Chhote Choudhary has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.