RANJU DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment under appeal dated 26th February, 2002 has been passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2000 arising out of Madhubani (Town) PS Case No. 197. of 1999. By the said judgment appellant, Ranju Devi has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/328 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment. The other co -accused Gopendra Kumar Thakur has been acquitted of the said charge. Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2002 has been preferred against conviction of Smt. Ranju Devi whereas the Govt. Appeal has been admitted for hearing against acquittal of co -accused Gopendra Kumar Thakur. The Criminal Revision has been preferred by the informant of the case against acquittal of Gopendra Kumar Thakur. Since all the three matters arise out of same judgment noticed above hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case as appearing from the Fardbeyan of one Rajniti Prasad Singh, brother of deceased Raj Ballabh Singh, recorded on

(3.) THE prosecution in order to prove the charges examined altogether 8 witnesses. PW 1, Ashish Kumar Mishra, PW 2, Ram Briksh Thakur, PW 3, Ganga Prasad Yadav, PW 4, Lal Babu Thakur, PW 5, Shyam Kumar Rai and PW 6, Salnarayan Thakur, chose not to support the prosecution case and, therefore, have been declared hostile. PW 7, Birendra Kumar Thakur, is a brother of appellant, Ranju Devi and he has deposed only to the effect that relations between her sister and deceased brother -in -law was not cordial and the deceased had once told him that conduct of the appellant was not proper. This witness has stated that the appellant and Gopendra Kumar Thakur used to teach in the same school but he is not aware whether they have any illicit relationship. Admittedly, he was not present in the house and has not seen any part of the alleged occurrence. The last remaining witness PW 8, Neelu Kumari is a daughter of this appellant who at the time of the alleged occurrence was aged about 9 years. The conviction has been recorded mainly on the basis of this witness.