RAJEEV SINGH @ RAJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, dated 1.10.2010 and order of sentence, dated 6.10.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II, Vaishali, in Sessions Trial No. 509 of 2003, whereby, while acquitting the two other co-accused, namely, Hanuman Singh and Sanjeev Singh, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, Rajeev Singh, under Sections 304-B read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution's case, as set out in the fardbeyan of Raj Ballav Singh, son of late Ram Chandra Singh of village Madarna, P.S. Vaishali, District Vaishali recorded by Sub Inspector, Shri Anuj Singh of Belsar O.P., P.S. Vaishali at 11:15 hrs., on 13.05.2002 at Belsar O.P., in short, is as follows : The informant Raj Ballav Singh stated that a year ago, he married his daughter Veena Devi to the accused Rajiv Kumar son of Hanuman Singh of Village Nagwa, P.S. Vaishali (Belsar O.P.). In the marriage, he gave goods and gifts to the best of his capability. However, the accused Rajiv Kumar and his father (Hanuman Singh) also demanded a Rajdoot motor cycle on the day of the marriage. The informant assured to give motor cycle, as soon as his financial position improves. After some time, the informant brought her daughter from her sasural, who disclosed that her husband, father-in-law (Hanuman Singh) and brother-in-law (Sanjeev Kumar) have been torturing her for non-fulfilment of demand of motor cycle. The informant's daughter remained at her paternal house for some time. Later, her husband came and on his insistence, Veena Devi was sent to her sasural with him. Just after a few days, the informant's daughter sent a message complaining of assault again by her husband and others for non-fulfilment of demand of motor cycle. They had also threatened to do away with her life. Her husband, in particular, has been threatening that he would burn her to death and nothing would happen to them. The informant along with other villagers came to his daughter's sasural and informed the local Mukhiya of the torture being meted to her daughter. The informant also met the accused and pleaded not to assault her for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. For some time, the accused did not misbehave with his daughter. On 13.5.2002, the informant learnt from some villagers of Nagma that on the same day at about 7 A.M., the three accused assaulted her, sprinkled kerosene oil and set her body to fire, with an intention to kill.. The informant claims that the accused persons tortured and killed her daughter by burning her, for non-fulfilment of demand of motor cycle. The Balsar O.P. forwarded the fardbeyan to Officer-Incharge Vaishali P.S. for registration of a regular case. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No.7 of 2002, dated 30.5.2002, was registered under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet under section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, which took cognizance of offence on 23.11.2002 and committed the case to the Court of sessions on 15.9.2003 for trial. Charges were framed under section 304B//34 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case, examined altogether 20 witnesses, namely, Nathuni Ram as P.W.1, Nagina Singh as P.W.2, Chandrika Mahto as P.W.3, Md. Hussain as P.W. 4, Ram Nath Chaudhary as P.W.5, Binda Singh as P.W.6, Surajdeo Singh as P.W.7, Smt. Gangia Devi as P.W.8, Devendra Paswan as P.W.9, Satish Kumar as P.W.10, Umesh Prasad as P.W. 11, Sanjeev Kumar as P.W. 12, Kamalesh Kumar @ Laddu Kumar as P.W. 13, Shankar Singh as P.W. 14, Ram Swaroop Singh as P.W. 15, Shankar Mohan Singh as P.W. 16, Rajan Prasad as P.W. 17, Pramod Kumar Singh as P.W. 18 and Raj Ballam Singh as P.W. 19 and Sanjay Kumar Devbrat as P.W. 20.