DILIP YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein along with his father Suresh Mandal and mother Matri Devi were charged under Sections 304b/34, 302/34 and 201, IPC for causing "dowry death" of Sushila Devi, wife of the appellant herein in Sessions Trial no. 114 of 1991, arising out of Madhepura p. S. Case No. 91 of 1990 and Sri Ram Vyash ram, the then 1st Additional Sessions judge, Madhepura, by his judgment and order dated 2nd February, 1993, while acquitting Suresh Mandal and Matri Devi of all the charges convicted Dilip Kumar yadav under Section 304b, IPC and sentencing him to undergo an imprisonment for 7 years.

(2.) THE prosecution case can be culled from the fardbeyan of informant Devendra prasad Yadav, the brother-in-law (Bahnoi)of deceased Sushila Devi given at 11. 30 a. m. on 15. 5. 1990, wherein it was alleged, inter alia, that at around 10 a. m. earlier that day information was received from Devendra mehta, a peon in Madhepura P. W. D. , Sub-Divisional Office, that his sister-in-law (Sali) Sushila Devi who had been married to Dilip Kumar Yadav some three years back had died and her dead body was lying in the angan. It is said that upon receipt of the information he went to the sasural of sushila Devi and found the dead body lying in the angan, covered with a gendri and her parents-in-law and husband had fled from the house. On lifting the gendri it was found that Sushila's whole body had been burnt. On inquiry he learnt that the accused persons had committed the murder in the night and had absconded and the dead body had been lying in the angan ever since. It is said that the accused persons constantly kept demanding a cow and an ox and cash in dowry which Sushila's father could not fulfil due to his financial constraints. It has further been alleged that the father-in-law of Sushila Devi on the alleged night forcibly committed rape on her which she protested to and began to raise alarm and in order to suppress that alarm and conceal the fact of rape they murdered the deceased and thereafter with a view to conceal this fact they sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and burnt her to death. It has also been mentioned that prior to committing the offence the accused persons had tied her wrist with rope. The further case of the prosecution is that the dead body of the deceased was dragged from her bedroom to the angan with a view to conceal the dead body somewhere else intending to screen legal evidence. On the basis of the said fardbeyan madhepura PS Case No. 91 of 1990 was registered under Sections 302, 201 and 304b/34, IPC against the 3 persons and after due investigation charge-sheet was submitted against them under the same provisions.

(3.) IN support of its case the prosecution sought to examine as many as 9 witnesses and Md. Hafez was examined as a Court witness who came to prove the fardbeyan. inquest report and seizure list respectively marked as Exts. 5, 6 and 7. Out of the 9 witnesses PW8 Indra Narain Singh and pw9 Anil Kumar are formal witnesses who have simply proved the formal FIR and postmortem report respectively marked as Exts. 3 and 4. PW6 Devendra Prasad Yadav is the informant of the case and PW7, Sitaram yadav, has been declared to be hostile.