DHIRO YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant Dhiro Yadav along with nine accused persons faced trial for offences under Sections 323, 307, 380, 498A, 494 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in pursuance of the charges framed on 26.07.2008. Other nine accused persons were acquitted by the same judgment and the appellant has been found guilty only for the offences under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed in Complaint Case No.1211 of 2006, which was subsequently registered as Amarpur P.S. Case No. 168 of 2006, on being forwarded under Sec. 156(3) of the Crimial P.C., is that informant Munni Devi was married with the appellant, according to Hindu rites and rituals in the year 1999. For few years cordial relationship was there with her husband. Thereafter, the in-laws including the appellant started putting pressure to bring a buffalo and Rs. 25,000.00 cash from her parents to have a peaceful life in the matrimonial house. As instrument of torture, the complainant was not being provided with proper treatment on illness. After sometime she fell ill and for trivial matters she was being assaulted. In the meantime, a male child was born out of the wedlock. On 10.06.2006, all the accused persons bitterly assaulted to the informant and they attempted to burn her. However, on alarm the neighbours came and rescued her. On 25.07.2006 she was again assaulted in her matrimonial house in village Gorgama, P.S. Amarpur, District-Banka, and this time her ornaments were snatched and she was thrown out from the house. She was further threatened that husband would marry with another lady. On 18.08.2006, the father of the complainant died thereafter she along with her brother Pramod (not examined in this case) went to Amarpur where her husband and father-in-law were working, she found that accused Rina Devi was in the house. Rina committed assault against the informant thereafter she went to the police station for lodging criminal case, which was not lodged. Hence, the complaint case was filed.

(3.) Contention of the appellant is that on the very same evidence the learned trial Court acquitted other accused persons on the ground that there is no specific allegation against the acquitted accused persons. Contrary view against the appellant is erroneous one on the same and similar nature of evidence against the appellant. His next contention is that earlier the wife/informant had filed Complaint Case No. 1087 of 2005 Exhibit-B, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the present complaint case was filed and prosecuted at the instigation of others. The evidence on the other hand would reveal that a girl child was born from this appellant to the complainant during pendency of the criminal case and the complainant had executed a registered transfer-deed in favour of the said child. Thereafter, a compromise petition was filed in this case vide Exhibit-C along with affidavit of the complainant vide Exhibit-D. Thereafter, just to pressurize for more money, in spite of the compromise, the complaint case was not closed. The aforesaid fact had been ignored by the learned trial Court while passing the judgment of conviction against the appellant.