RAM DAYAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 304-B and rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offences under Sections 201 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) for causing the death of his wife. All the sentences were however, ordered to run concurrently by the lea rned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 16/17 of August, 1993 against which this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Minakshi Devi alias Munni, the younger sister of Rajendra Prasad (PW 5), the informant, of Mohalla Shobhaganj within Sasaram Police Station of Rohtas District was married in March, 1988 to Ram Dayal Jaiswal (appellant) of village Punnaon of Bhagwanpur P. S. of the same district. In March, 1988, Gauna was performed and the deceased thereafter went to live in her Sasural.At the time of her marriage and Gauna, the parents of the deceased had given her ornaments, clothes and other articles such as radio and tape. Only a golden chain of 2 1/2 bhars was not given as a result of which the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, dewar of the deceased and their wives started scolding and physically and mentally torturing her. The deceased was even threatened she would be killed and would never be sent back to her Naihar unless the golden chain was delivered. The informant had sent Kalewa on the occasion of Holi and Rakshabandhan for her sister (deceased) through his cousin, Anil Kumar Jaiswal (PW 3). The deceased had sent a message through PW 3 for sending the golden chain. The demand, however, could not be made on account of poverty. On 13-8-1989, while the informant along with Gaya Prasad Sah (PW4) was on way to the Sasural of the deceased, they learnt that the deceased had been killed by her in-laws and the dead body had been burnt on Monday last. On the basis of a written report (Ext. 2) dated 1-10-1989 filed by the informant before the Officer-in-Charge of Bhagwanpur P. S. the police drew a formal first information report (Ext. 1) and registered a case under Section 302/201/34, IPC and Section 304-B of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant and four others including his parents. After completion of investigation, the police charge sheeted five accused persons including the appellant under Sections 304-B/498-A/201/ 34, IPC. All the five accused persons were put on trial on charges under Section 304(b)/34/201, IPC for causing murder of the deceased and for disappearance of her body on 25-9-1989. Eight witnesses were examined for the prosecution and nine witnesses on behalf of the defence and a number of documents were also exhibited both on behalf of the prosecution and the defence. The defence case was that the deceased died of cholera and her deadbody was cremated in due course after sending an information to that effect to her Naihar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the defence plea that the deceased died of cholera. He, however, acquitted all the accused persons except the appellant whom he convicted and sentenced in the manner already indicated above not only for the offences under Sections 304(b) and 201, IPC for which he had been charged but also for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC.

(3.) Shri B. P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that there was no legal and satisfactory evidence on the record to support the conviction of the appellant. He pointed out that it was not a case of dowry death as the deceased was subjected to torture in connection with the demand of dowry, had not been proved. Two letters of the deceased marked Exts. 3 and 3/1, were said to contain no allegation of torture insofar the husband of the deceased, namely, the appellant was concerned and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had fallen in error in acquitting four of the co-accused and then proceeding to rely on the same evidence to convict the appellant. Another infirmity pointed out in the impugned judgment is that the appellant had adduced legal and satisfactory evidence to prove that the deceased had died of cholera and the evidence including that of the doctor who had examined her while she was alive, had been brushed aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for no good and cogent reasons. Shri S. K. P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondeat, however, supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentences passed against the appellant as based on facts and circumstances amply proved in course of the trial.