DEVENDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Altogether 9 life convicts are in appeal before us for setting aside the judgment and sentence dated 15th and 17th July, 1995 respectively passed by Shri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 1988. By the impugned judgment the learned Trial Court has been pleased to hold and declare that the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code have been successfully proved against the appellants herein beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, they have been convicted for those offences and sentenced accordingly, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of one Binda Rai (PW 7) who alleged that on 10.05.1986 at about 5:00 p.m. he was informed by one Shyambahadur Rai that his daughter Kanti Devi was murdered by his son-in-law and other family members of the family of the son-in-law at about 12:00 a.m. on the same day and that they were also trying to dispose of the dead body. It is stated that the informant rushed to the place of occurrence in village Rampur along with his co-villagers namely, Bageshwar Rai, (PW 1), Laldeo Rai (not examined), Ramnaresh Rai (PW 4), Saryug Rai (PW 2) and Ramprit Rai (not examined). On reaching the place of occurrence, he found the child of the deceased and learnt from the villagers that the daughter of the informant was murdered by the accused persons and they have also concealed her dead body. In his fardbeyan PW 7 further stated that in the meantime the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Raghopur Police Station came there along with police force and made hectic search for the dead body but could not trace. The informant alleged that expectedly the dead body was thrown somewhere in river Ganges. The deceased was married only four years ago with Devendra Rai (appellant no. 1) the son of accused Dharmdeo Rai. After marriage, the girl had gone to her in-laws house and returned from there only last year. It was also alleged that the informant's son-in-law, Samadhi i.e. father-in-law of the daughter of the informant were demanding watch and Radio from the informant but the informant was unable to give those things due to paucity of money and deferred the same to give after some time. It is further alleged that the informant occasionally visited the house of his daughter for the purpose of "Rukshadi" but the sonin-law was insisting for fulfillment of the demand and told the informant that they would not allow his daughter to go to her parent's house unless his demands are fulfilled. According to the informant, he promised to fulfill the demand at the time of marriage of his son, as it was fixed on 17.05.1986, but when the informant went to his daughter's house on 02.05.1986 for "Rukshadi" the father-in-law and son-in-law both demanded the said articles otherwise they would not allow the informant's daughter to go. The informant was, allegedly, also not allowed to meet his daughter's son aged about 1 and 1/2 years. A panchayati was convened in which Mukhiya of the village, which is the place of occurrence, and some other persons participated. The Panches decided that the girl will go to her parent's house on 12.05.1986 and the informant would give the alleged articles to his son-in-law. It was agreed by both the parties and the informant went to his village home Jethuli. The occurrence took place on 10.05.1986. Fardbeyan of the informant was exhibited as Ext. 4 and the formal FIR arising out of the same being Raghopur P.S. Case No. 28 of 1986 dated 10.05.1986 was exhibited as Ext. 3. After investigation the Police submitted chargesheet, cognizance was taken and the records were committed to the court of sessions for trial. Charges were framed against the accused persons, as stated above, but they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In course of trial, prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses to substantiate the charges. PW 7 is the informant, PW 2 and PW 4 are the brothers of the informant whereas PW 1 is a co-villager of the informant. PW 3 is a resident of neighbouring village of the place of occurrence who had informed the informant (PW 7) about the occurrence. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Mukhiya (PW 5) and Rambaboo Rai (PW 6) are both residents of village of the place of occurrence and they had held the panchayati. Thakur Bcchanand Prasad (PW 8) is a formal witness who has proved the fardbeyan (Ext. 3), FIR (Ext. 4) and chargesheet (Ext. 5).