ANIRUDH SAH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Anirudh Sah who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, 201 IPC vide judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2011 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years as well as fined Rs. 5,000/ - in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for six month, additionally under Section 304B IPC, R.I. for six month as well as fine of Rs. 1,000/ - (having no default clause) under Section 201 of the IPC with a direction to run the sentences concurrently vide order of sentence dated 04.03.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, IInd, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 415 of 2003 has preferred instant appeal in order to challenge the same.

(2.) BHAGWAN Sah (PW.6) gave his fardbeyan on 07.10.2001 at about 09:00 A.M. alleging inter alia that his youngest daughter Geeta Devi has been married to Kailash Sao, son of Anirudh Sao about five years ago and at the time of marriage, he had gifted according to his means. At an earliest his daughter was living at her Sasural in cordial atmosphere but for the last one year, his son -in -law Kailash as well as Samdhi Anirudh Sao (appellant) began to demand Rs. 10,000/ - and for that, his son -in -law used to say that in case of non -payment of Rs. 10,000/ - his daughter will be eliminated. On 06.10.2001 at about 02:00 PM his another daughter Meena Devi who is also married in the same village, came and inquired about Geeta as, Geeta was not present at her Sasural. On account thereof, he along with his sons and others reached at the house of Geeta where found Kailash and Anirudh absconding. From the neighbours he came to know that Kailash, Anirudh, Kutto Sao and Muni Lal caused murder of Geeta and then dead body has been thrown in a well of Chunchun Chaudhary. They rushed towards the well. He found dead body of Geeta outside well. Her hands and legs were tied. It has also been disclosed that Meena Devi had said that Geeta had told her that 4 -5 days ago Kailash had attempted to do way with her life, however due to timely intervention of villagers, she was rescued.

(3.) THE defence case as is evident from mode of cross -examination as well as statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial as well as of false implication. However, neither any DW nor any kind of document has been exhibited on behalf of appellant.