BIPIN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant alongwith his father Rajendra Singh were put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 453 of 1994 (arising out of Sheikhpura PS. Case No. 105 of 1994) for offences under Sections 498A, 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. However, as Rajendra Singh the father expired during the pendency of the trial, the proceeding so far as he was concerned was dropped vide order dated 17.12.1997. Later on Sri Paras Nath Sinha, the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court (Fast Track), Munger, who was in seisin of the trial by his judgment dated 28.8.2003 convicted Bipin Kumar Singh under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 I.P.C. and was accordingly by order dated 29.8.2003 sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for offence under Sec.304B I.P.C. and R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default whereof to undergo S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Sec. 498A I.P.C. However, no separate punishment was imposed for the offence under Sec. 201. I.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case is founded on the written report (Ext. 2) submitted by one Ram Sewak Singh on 11.5.1994, inter alia, stating that the marriage of his Phupheri Bahan (cousin), Baby Devi, was solemnized with Bipin Kumar Singh, son of Rajendra Singh, of village Berma within Sheikhpura RS. some 3 years back at his instance, as Baby Devi 'sparents had expired when she was still a child. It is said that the Gauna ceremony of Baby Devi was performed about a year back and ever since then me husband started demanding a TV. set which the informant assured to give as and when he had sufficient funds. It is further said that on 2.5.1994 the informant received a letter from his cousin through an unknown person wherein she revealed that she was abused and assaulted by her husband and parents -in -law Rajendra Singh and Uma Devi, who apart from castigating her for not bringing sufficient dowry also extended threats of getting Bipin Kumar Singh married else where after killing her. The informant on the receipt of the letter sent Surendra Singh and Satyanarayan Singh to village Berma to reason with and appease the husband and parents -in -law of Baby Devi and as they were leaving Baby Devi 'sSasural to return home, Baby Devi allegedly showed them the marks of assault on her body. It is the further case of the informant that when on 11.5.1994 he himself went to village Berma to reason with and appease Bipin and his parents he found the house locked and the inhabitants thereof absent. It is alleged that on inquiry from his neighbours the informant learnt that his cousin was strangulated to death and her dead body having been disposed of surreptitiously the husband and his parents had fled from his house. On the basis of the said written report Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 105 of 1994. was registered against Bipin Kumar Singh, Rajendra Singh and Uma Devi under Sections 304B and 201/34 I.P.C.

(3.) THE defence plea is one of innocence and false implication. The defence case as unfolds from the trend of cross -examination is that Baby Devi 'sparents having expired during her childhood, she and considerable landed property at village Nimi had fallen under the guardianship of the informant who overwhelmed with evil intentions to usurp all the property had forcibly got Bipin Kumar Singh married to his cousin, Baby Devi, without paying any farthing to him and had also sold the landed property and out of the sale proceeds surreptitiously purchasing a house for himself at Lakhisarai assiduously misrepresented to Baby Devi that he had put the sale proceeds in a fixed deposit scheme which on maturity would be made over to her in -laws to tide over the aashirbadi ceremony. It is also the case of the defence that Baby Devi after her marriage had never come to her marital home and had continued to stay with the informant and that when she learnt of the fraud played upon her by the informant she committed suicide at the informant 's house by consuming poison and as a matter of fact it was the informant who disposed of the dead body and falsely implicated the accused persons.