BALMUKUND PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 31.03.1995 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions JudgeAurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 1994/81 of 1994 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 201, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code whereas acquitted them of the charges framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) It is pertinent to note here that during pendency of this criminal appeal, appellant no. 1, namely, Balmukund Pandey died and accordingly, his appeal stood abated vide order dated 18.08.2018.

(3.) Pw-2, namely, Mithilesh Kumar Pandey gave his ferdbeyan to PW-7 on 25.04.1994 at about 5:00 PM. at village Dhanibar to this effect that he got information from the PW-4 Murari Mishra that his niece, namely, Kusum Devi was killed by her husband as well as grand father of her husband by pressing her neck and after that by putting her on fire. The PW-4 also informed that dead body of Kusum Devi had been burnt to ash. PW-2, further, claimed that having got the aforesaid information, he immediately went to Village Dhanibar where he came to know from the villagers that at the time of alleged occurrence, both the appellants were present at their house and the appellant no. 2, who happens to be husband of deceased Kusum Devi, pressed her neck and after that put her on fire and by doing the aforesaid act he gave the colour of an accident. The PW-2, further, claimed that aforesaid occurrence took place at about 8:00 A.M. but he was never informed by the appellants. The PW-2, further, claimed that appellant no. 2 Anil Pandey was demanding motorcycle in dowry and when the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. PW-2, further, claimed that marriage of deceased had taken place in the year 1991 with appellant no. 2. He, further, claimed that appellant no. 2 was a drunkard and the aforesaid habit of appellant no. 2 caused difference between him and the deceased. The PW-2 claimed that deceased was killed by the appellants and subsequently, her dead body was cremated.