RAJESH RANJAN VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of rupees one thousand in default of which two months rigorous imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of rupees one thousand in default of which imprisonment for one month respectively by the judgment dated 18.10.1993 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 180 of 1992.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that Sarita, the deceased was married with the appellant on 30.6.1998 (sic-1988?) i.e. about 2 to 2-1/2 years before the present occurrence. On 19.11.1990, when the informant and his wife had gone to meet his sister, the deceased, they saw the family members quarrelling with the deceased over demand of a motorcycle. However, the informant settled the dispute. On the next date, he sent his nephew P.W. 4 Raju Kumar to invite the appellant, the deceased and other family members to a house function but when P.W. 4 reached the house was locked and the neighbour informed that the deceased had been taken to the hospital. Upon this, the informant came to the village of the deceased and saw that the accused persons were ready to cremate the dead body of his sister but they fled away on seeing him and thereafter the present case was instituted on 25.11.1990 in Bettiah.

(3.) IN this background, if we examine the evidence of P.W. 4 Raju Kumar, it will be apparent that he is the nephew of the informant and had gone to the house of the deceased and had merely learnt that there had been quarrel between the accused person and the deceased and no more than that. He is not an eye witness to any cruelty having been meted out to the deceased by the appellant. P.W. 6, the informant and brother of the deceased and P.W. 7 Ranjeet Prasad, the" father of the deceased have merely stated that they used to quarrel over the demand of Television, Motorcycle and ornaments. The fact that cruelty had been meted out on account of non-fulfillment of demand of T.V., Motorcycle and ornaments has already been disbelieved by the court below and, therefore, once the reason for cruelty has been disbelieved the major portion of the prosecution case comes to a naught. Under the circumstances, the onus on the prosecution to prove cruelty, essential ingredients of Section 306 of the INdian Penal Code is not fulfilled and no presumption can be drawn against the accused in the background of the case.