NARESH MISTRY @ MUKESH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three appellants herein faced trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304 B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 2000 arising out of Phulwari P.S. Case No. 262/98. G.R. No. 2663/98 and on being found guilty of the aforesaid three charges by Judgment and order dated 15th December, 2003 passed by Sri Bharat Prasad Yadav, the then 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna whereas appellant, Naresh Mistry the husband of the deceased, has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304B of I.P.C., appellants Ramchandra Mistry and Sumitra Devi, have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304B of I.P.C. all the three appellants have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under section 498A of I.P.C, and each of them have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for offence under section 201 of I.P.C. It was further directed that in default in payment of fine they were to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and all sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) As per the allegations in the fardbeyan of Ramprit Mistry given at 3.30 P.M. on 12.7.1998 the marriage of his daughter, Nilu Kumari, was solemnised with Naresh Mistry on 14.5.1997 whereat cash worth Rs. 11,000/-, bicycle, watch, Sewing machine and ornaments were presented to the accused persons. It is alleged that after the marriage Ramchandra Mistry, his Samadhi, and Naresh Mistry used to raise grievance of insufficient articles having been given and demanded that a T.V., Tape Deck and one set of utensils be given failing which they would not take the bride to the marital home. It is said that the informant expressed his inability to dole out further money and assured to fulfil the demand when he could muster sufficient funds whereupon the Duragaman took place on 6.3.1998. It is alleged that on 8.6.1998 when the informant alongwith his son, Niraj, went to the house of his daughter and asked the accused persons for Bidai of his daughter his Samdhin and son-in-law refused Bidai stating that the same would not be possible until and unless the demanded articles were furnished. The informant further stated that his daughter Nilu Kumari had disclosed to him and his son that for the non-fulfilment of the demand she was subjected to assault by the accused persons. It is also said that the informant again requested the accused persons for Bidai but they instead were threatened and there was reiteration of fulfilling the demand within a month. It is alleged that on 4.7.1998 one Jamuna Prasad of Village Jaganpura came to him and informed him that his daughter had been killed by the accused persons by setting her on fire,and they had concealed the dead body. It is said that on receipt of the information the informant went to village Jaganpura and came to know that his daughter had been killed by the accused persons who had also concealed the dead body and on coming to the house of the accused the informant was abused and driven away. It has been claimed that Nilu Kumari had been burnt to death by the accused persons for non-fulfilment of dowry.

(3.) On the basis of the said fard beyan Phulwari P.S. Case No. 262/98 under Sections 498A, 304B/34, of I.P.C, was registered and the police after due investigation submitted a charge sheet under Sections 498A, 304B, 201/34 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.