PRABHAWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") by judgment dated 31.10.2017, passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 473 of 2014, arising out of Daudpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2014, and by order dated 08.11.2017, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

(2.) The appellants are said to have killed the deceased, viz. Anju Devi who was married to appellant No. 7/Chandan Singh on 01.05.2013 in accordance with the Hindu religious rites. Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are related to appellant No. 7/Chandan Singh.

(3.) The First Information Report has been lodged by Umesh Kumar Singh (informant/P.W. 3) , who is the father of the deceased. He has alleged in the First Information Report that he got his daughter married to appellant/Chandan Singh on 01.05.201 After sometime of the marriage, the appellants, including her husband (appellant/Chandan Singh) started torturing her for additional dowry. On one or two occasions, the daughter of the informant was thrown out of her matrimonial home but with his intercession, she was again kept in the matrimonial home by the appellants. About four days prior to lodging of this case, P.W. 3 wanted to talk to his daughter but could not connect with her. He could somehow connect with the number of the mother-in-law of the deceased but the mother-in-law, on some pretext or the other, did not bring his daughter on line. Sensing some foul play, P.W. 3 made a telephonic enquiry with one of the neighbours of the appellants, who disclosed that the dead-body of a lady is lying near the railway tracks for about two days. On this information, he along with his relatives and the person who had given the aforesaid information to him went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and tried to inquire about her. The mother-in-law of the daughter told him that his daughter has run away from the house for the last three days. This raised suspicion in the mind of P.W. 3 and he along with other went near the railway tracks and found a dead-body of a women. It was stated by him that he could identify the deadbody to be of his daughter on the basis of her face, hair and the clothes which she was wearing. It was, therefore, alleged that for non-payment of additional dowry, his daughter was killed and in order to screen the offence, the dead-body was thrown near the railway tracks to give it a colour of accident on the tracks. He has further stated that the appellant No. 8, who is the brother-in-law of one of the brothers of the husband of the deceased, was also responsible for the same. He had threatened his daughter earlier also of killing her.