UMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 13th December, 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 291/99 by learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Samastipur, whereby the two appellants of Cr.Appeal No. 24/2002, who are mother -in -law and father -in -law respectively of the deceased, and sole appellant of the other appeal, who is husband of the deceased, have been convicted under Sections 304B, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. the appellants have been awarded R.I. for life, for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default R.I. for one year and for Section 120B I.P.C. R.I. for three years.

(2.) THE informant of this case, Kailash Giri (P.W.11) is father of the deceased Sanjoo Devi. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8.8.1998 at about 12 noon the informant went to matrimonial house of his daughter Sanjoo Devi to bring her to his own house as per programme fixed in advance. He found father -in -law of his daughter wearing traditional dress which is worn by the person who cremates a dead relation. On enquiry, father -in -law disclosed that in the previous night informant's daughter had consumed aldrin poison and died due to the same. When the informant left that place crying, in the way he heard some ladies infront of darwaja of Bhola Giri stating that his daughter had been administered poison and the dead body was thrown in river Gandak. The informant could not know the identity of those ladies. He made enquiries and went to police station where his fardbeyan was recorded by Sub Inspector of Police R.N. Chaudhary, Officer -in -Charge of Bibhutipur P.S. on 8.8.1998 at 17.00 hours at Bibhutipur P.S. In the fardbeyan the informant gave out details how he had paid dowry of Rs. 21,000/ - for the marriage of his deceased daughter which had taken place on 18.5.1997. According to his statement, in April, 1998 the deceased was brought to her matrimonial house by her husband behind the back of the informant and at that time Rs. 10,000/ - of the agreed dowry was still due. Later the informant made arrangement and paid Rs. 10,000/ - to the father -in -law of the deceased but the in -laws and the husband of the deceased were not happy because demand for some furniture and bedding had not been made. It was also disclosed in the fardbeyan that about 15 days earlier his co -villager Mansilal Thakur, who runs a hair -cutting saloon at Sindhiya Ghat Chak, had come to his house and informed him that deceased had given birth to a boy who died within two days. On that issue he had sent his son Babulal Giri (P.W.4) to bring his daughter to his house but the accused persons did not agree and as such a programme was fixed for Shrawani Poornima (the day on which informant went to bring the deceased and learnt about her death). It was also disclosed in the fardbeyan that on coming back from matrimonial house of the deceased, the son of the informant disclosed that Sanjoo was crying and had complained that for the articles and bedding of second marriage (dwiragaman) she was being tortured by her mother -in -law, father -in -law and the husband and they were asking her to sleep on the floor. The informant alleged that because the articles and bedding etc. were not given for dwiragaman, the deceased had been poisoned to death and her body was thrown in the river Gandak.

(3.) THE defence of the accused which appears from cross examination of material witnesses is that deceased died due to illness, probably tetanus. Thus, the defence is that deceased died natural death and entire prosecution case is false.