RAJESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment because they arise out of the same judgment and order dated 5th May, 1993 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 310 of 1990 convicting and sentencing Rajeshwar Prasad, the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1993 and Nageshwar Prasad alias Nageshwar Pd. Singh, Kaushalia Devi, Ashok Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, the remaining four appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 251 of 1993 to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, R. I. for 7 years under Section 304(B) read with Section 34, IPC and R. I. for 7 years under Section 201, IPC. All the appellants have further been found guilty and convicted under Section 498A, IPC but no separate sentence for this offence has been passed. The sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that ASI R. S. Pandey (PW 13) along with Hawaldar Satya Narayan Singh (PW 10), Ishwar Dayal Ram (PW 9) and constable Sheo Shankar (not examined) while on patrolling duty on 9-1-90 at about 8 a.m. was crossing the road between Bari Pahari and Chhoti Pahari, he heard rumour that somebody after assaulting a woman had thrown her in a Nala situate South of Bari Pahari. He along with above-named Hawaldar and Constables went to the place situate South of Bari Pahari and found that a woman aged about 25-27 years was lying unconscious there and local villagers had assembled there. He further found that there was a round mark on the neck of that woman and there were burn like injuries on her leg and back. Local villagers could not identify the woman. Shri Pandey then directed the local Chaukidar and Dafadar for informing about the matter to Patna City Hospital and got her admitted there for treatment. He also informed by wireless to CT PIR but on 17-1-90 CT PIR informed him that the lady died during course of treatment. He then submitted a written Report (Ext. 15) before Officer Incharge, Agam Kuan Police Station and a case under Section 302, IPC against unknown was registered. The police photographer took the photographs of the deceased. On 4-2-90 Chandeshwar Prasad (PW 5) went to Agamkuan Police Station and identified the photographs of the deceased to be of his daughter named Indu Kumari. He also filed a report (Ext. 2) at the Police Station stating therein that his daughter Indu Kumari was married to appellant Rajeshwar Prasad in the year 1986 and he had deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the SBI, Hilsa in Fixed Deposit in joint names of Rajeshwar Prasad and Indu Kumari and he further deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000/- in Nalanda Gramin Bank in Fixed Deposit and at the time of marriagehe had given gifts according to his financial capacity. After marriage his daughter went to her Sasural and returned back after 3-4 days and she complained that her husband and his other family members misbehaved with her saying that her father had not given dowry according to their expectations and they were demanding a further sum of Rs. 35,000/-, Fridge and a colour T. V. and she was threatened that in case of non-fulfilment of their demand she would be killed. At the time of 'Gauna' (popularly known as 2nd marriage) when the appellant Rajeshwar Prasad along with his friends came to the house of Chandeshwar Prasad, he demanded money, Fridge and a colour T. V. but Chandeshwar Prasad expressed his inability. Indu Kumari after 'Gauna' went with her husband Rajeshwar Prasad and started living in a rented house belonging to Chunnu Bhagat (not examined) in Mehandiganj Mohalla of Patna. After one week when Dharambir Prasad (PW 2) the younger brother of Indu Kumari visited her, she again complained about demand of dowry made by the appellants. On 27-1-90 when Chandeshwar Prasad went to the house of appellants at Mehandiganj, he came to know that they had left the house and appellants were residing in Bari Pahari Village and on 28-1-90 when he went to Bari Pahari Village and inquired about his daughter, the appellants became angry and asked him not to visit them again. Chandeshwar Prasad in his report stated that the appellants after killing his daughter Indu Kumari had disposed of her dead body. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet and the cognizance of the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of session and charges under Sections 302/34, 304(B)/34, 201 and 498A, IPC were framed against all the appellants and after trial the appellants were found guilty and were accordingly convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

(3.) The case of the appellants before the Court below was complete denial of charges framed against them and their false implication in the present case. According to them, at the time of alleged occurrence the deceased was residing with her father and she had illicit relations with one Shiv Balak Rai. When this fact came to the knowledge of her father Chandeshwar Prasad (PW 5) he with the help of others committed murder of his daughter and when he came to know that an unknown lady in unconscious state was found by police in a ditch, who subsequently died, taking the advantage of this situation he claimed that unidentified lady to be his daughter Indu Kumari and has falsely implicated the appellants in this case. 11 witnesses on behalf of the appellants have been examined.