STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RUDRA NARAYAN DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOVT. Appeal No. 39 of 1993 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27. 5. 1993 passed by shri Om Prakash Pandey, 4th Additional sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial no. 93 of 1992 by which he acquitted all the respondents. Criminal Revision No. 558 of 1993 has been preferred by the informant pandey Prasad Dev against the same judgment of acquittal dated 27. 5. 1993 passed in s. Tr. No. 93/92. Hence both these two matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that on 7. 8. 1990 informant Pandav Prasad Dev filed a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Purnia stating therein that his daughter Leela Devi was married to accused respondent Amaresh Kumar Dev son of Rudra Narayan Dev of village Bhatta bari P. S. Forbesganj, District Purnia on 26th June, 1988. He further stated that her husband Amresh Kumar Dev, her father-in-law Rudra Narayan Dev, her mother-in-law Smt. Durgawati Devi, her dewars bhupesh Kumar Dev and Brajesh Kumar dev @ Pappu had assaulted her after putting funda (noose) around her neck on 26. 7. 1990. Leela Devi on account of it died on 30. 7. 1990 and till the above period she remained unconscious. The informant learnt about the details of the death subsequently from his near relations living there i. e. at Bhatta Bari. He also alleged that the dead body of his daughter Leela Devi was disposed of without handing over the same to the police and after pouring petrol on the dead body it was burnt on 31. 7. 1990 at village Bhatta Bari. He further alleged that his daughter was being tortured for dahez by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and dewar. The demand was made from the informant, his nephew and the informant's-son as well but the same could not be fulfilled on account of economic circumstances of the informant. The informant thus asserted that he was confirmed that his daughter has been killed. He further stated that he was in Government service in Nepal and so he was not in a position to come frequently and see his daughter at bhatta Bazar in India. It appears that the superintendent of Police, Purnia directed the officer in-charge of Forbesganj to register a case accordingly. Forbesganj P. S. Case no 144/90 dated 7. 8. 1990 under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. The police took up investigation and after concluding the same submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Araria took cognizance on 2. 7. 1991. After commitment the accused respondents were tried and the learned 4th additional Sessions Judge. Purnia by judgment and order dated 27. 5. J993 acquitted them. Against the said acquittal the State has preferred the present appeal before this court. Similarly the informant against the said judgment of acquittal has preferred the present criminal revision application.

(3.) IT appears that against the accused respondents charges were framed under Sections 304b, 498a and 201 of the Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. To substantiate the charges the prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses and brought on record letters and diaries of the deceased in support of allegation. The defence took the plea that Leela Devi died of illness in normal course and she was treated at Sadar hospital, Purnia and then in Heera Devi nursing Home at Purnia. She was several times examined by the doctors and on their advice she was being taken to Patna to Dr. Ramesh Chandra, Neuro-surgeon and while on way to Patna she died at Kursaila on 30. 7. 1990 during night hours.