DINANATH RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.1992/29.7.1992 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 439 of 1989/86 of 1989 by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has further been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been directed that all the sentences will run concurrently. He has also been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been passed.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that Sunaina Devi, the informant (P.W.12) was married to Ashok Kumar Rai (deceased) of village -Balia, Police Station -Natwar, District -Rohtas. She had no issue. On 2.2.1989 she came to Ara with her mother -in -law (P.W.1) for her treatment. On 6.2.1989 she returned to village -Balia and asked Dinanath Rai, elder brother of her husband (appellant) and his wife about the deceased. The appellant told her that her husband (deceased) had gone somewhere taking the jeep. On 7.2.1989 she again went to Ara with her mother -in -law (P.W.1) for her own treatment. On 13.2.1989 the appellant came to Ara and asked the informant and her uncle Ram Janam Singh (P.W.2) as to whether Ashok (deceased) had come there. On query by P.W.2 the appellant told that on 4.2.1989 Ashok (deceased) had gone to Sasaram to purchase tyres for the vehicle but he did not return as yet. The informant got suspicious as there was some differences between her husband and the appellant. Prior to this occurrence the deceased had told the informant that his brother (appellant) was bent upon killing her husband. This information was given by the informant to her mother, uncle and brother. After getting information that the deceased had not returned on 14.2.1989 the informant went to Balia with her uncle, Ram Janam Singh (P.W.2), cousin brother Ram Awadhesh Singh (P.W.4) and mother -in -law (P.W.1) and enquired into the whereabouts of her husband but the appellant did not give any concrete answer. In the meantime, brother, uncle, father and co -villagers searched for her husband (deceased) but he was not traced out. Prior to this occurrence also, the appellant had tried to kill the deceased but he could be saved. She was certain that her husband had been killed by the appellant in collusion with other persons.

(3.) DURING trial the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses, out of them, P.W.1 was the mother of the deceased and the appellant and mother -in -law of the informant. P.W.2 Ram Janam Singh was the uncle of the informant, P.W.3 Chhotelal Singh was a formal witness, who had proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext.2). P.W.4 was the cousin brother of the informant, P.W.5 Ram Awadhesh Singh was the father of the informant and P.W.6 Chandraketu Singh was tendered. P.W.7 Mangla Rai, P.W.9 Birendra Rai, P.W.10 Ram Ekbal Rai and P.W.13 Harisharan Chamar were the co -villagers of the deceased and the appellant. P.W.8 Ajit Rai was the sister's son (Bhagina) of the appellant and the deceased. P.W. 14 Madan Singh was the constable, who had taken parts of the dead -body of the deceased to the hospital for post mortem examination and P.W.11 was Dr. Devendra Tripathy, who had held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the post -mortem examination report (Ext.3). P.W. 12 Sunaina Devi was the wife of the deceased and the informant of this case. P.W.15 Maheshwar Prasad Sharma was the investigating officer.