SURENDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rananjay Kumar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on this criminal appeal.

(2.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21.01.2013 and order of sentence dated 24.01.2013 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 2011 / 46 of 2011 arising out of Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 133 of 2010 corresponding to Complaint Case No. 2496/2010 whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused Surendra Rai for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also slapped him with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentence were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 133 of 2010 was instituted under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of complaint petition no. 2496/2010 lodged by Deo Kumari Devi @ Kumari Devi W/o Bharat Rai against the accused Surendra Rai on 04.09.2010 which was sent to the P.S. Baikunthpur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution and investigation of the case. The aforesaid complaint petition was filed with the allegation, in succinct that marriage of daughter of the informant, namely, Gita Devi was performed with accused Surendra Rai one year back. Subsequently, she learnt that the accused had deserted her first wife. Behaviour of the accused was not good against her daughter and her daughter always used to make complain against him. Three days preceding to the occurrence, accused Surendra Rai dropped Gita Devi at her house and asked her to arrive at the canal bridge at 08:00 PM, where he would call a sorcerer to facilitate giving birth to a male child. He warned her not to disclose the said fact to anyone and come alone there. In the evening, her daughter divulged her that her husband called her at canal bridge alone, but she is scaring, so she also accompanied her daughter, but the accused Surendra Rai did not arrive at the aforesaid place. Then after waiting for a long, they regressed to their house. After couple of days, Surendra Rai arrived at her house and asked her daughter about reason of not arriving at the aforesaid place on the fixed date. Whereupon they divulged him that they had arrived there and after waiting him for long, they had regressed to their house, then he kept mum. Further allegation is that on the following day, Surendra Rai slept with her daughter in a room and in the morning he started making hulla that her daughter Gita had stepped out of the house for defecation but she did not regress. Then the villagers started making search of her daughter and found her dead body in the canal located across the railway track on the southern side of the village with her hands tied on the back and nose and mouth bleeding. Witnessing the dead body of her daughter, the informant fell senseless, then the accused Surendra Rai took away the dead body to his village and cremated it. She has claimed that the accused Surendra Rai has committed murder of her daughter and disposed off her dead body. She has also claimed that the information of the occurrence was given at the P.S., but the S.I. did not arrive at the place of occurrence and lodged the case despite giving assurance, then she filed the complaint petition before the court which was forwarded to the P.S. Baikunthpur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 14.09.2010.