BIPIN KUMAR RAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-6-1998 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 1989, whereby and whereunder, the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo the for four years and RI for six months respectively to each of the appellants. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the informant. Ramdeo Rai. (PW 8) married his daughter Shanti Kumari with the accused-appellant Bipin Kumar Rai in the year 1984 in the month of May. At the time of marriage, the father of the accused Bipin Kumar Rai has taken Rs. 15,000/- in cash as dowry besides article worth Rs. 4.000/- from the informant. The informantTs daughter Shanti Kumari went to her sasural after the marriage. The informant subsequently went her sasural for roksadi but the accused persons and the father of Bipin Kumar Rai, namely, Bindeshwar Rat not readily agreeable for roksadi and there was a demand of Rs. 5.000/- in cash and a new motorcycle precondition for roksadi. They threatened that unless the above demand is not fulfilled they shall not perform roksadi. In the month of August, 1984, the informant promised to pay Rs. 5.000/ - in cash and a motorcycle at the time of roksadi, thereafter, the informantTs daughter was sent to her naihar. In the month of December, 1985 at the time of roksadi of informants daughter, her husband and other members of the family insisted on the payment of Rs. 5,000/- and a motorcycle and threatened that in future, she shall not De sent to her naihar if these demands are not fulfilled. It is further case of the prosecution that whenever the informant or any family member went to meet her in sasural, the appellant and father-in-law of Shanti Kumari did not allow them to meet her and there was a regular demand of the above articles as dowry and precondition for roksadi. There is also allegation that for non-fulfilment of these demands they started torturing her. It is further case of the prosecution that 20-4-1986 was the date fixed for the marriage of the son of the informant. The informant himself went to his daughterTs sasural for her dwiragman three days before the date fixed for the marriage of his son. But the accused persons did not allow his daughter to go her naihar to attend the marriage of her brother and they again insisted that she would go her naihar only after the above demands as dowry are fulfilled. On 19-4-1986 the elder son-in-law of the informant went to bring Shanti Kumari (deceased) from her sasural but she was not sent by her sasuralTs family members including the husband. They reiterated the above demands. On the next day i.e., on 20-4-1986 the informants uncle Ram Charitra Rai, (PW .1) and his elder son-in-law Ram Bishekh Rai, (PW 3) again went to bring the deceased Shanti Kumari from her sasural but both the appellants refused to send her to her naihar. They and their servant Sant Lal Mahto closed the door of the house and did not allow them to meet Shanti Kumari (deceased) on the ground that she was in-disposed. They (returned bank without meeting Shanti Kumari. It is further case of the prosecution that on that very day at about 9.00 a.m. the informant was informed by his villager Babu Lal Rat that appellants (accused) and other family members had poisoned his daughter to death and concealed the dead body in their house. The informant rushed to the Police Station. Samastipur Muffasil and on his fardbeyan, the case was registered and the charge-sheet was submitted against three accused-persons who faced the trial but the lower Court acquitted accused Sant Lal Mahto and convicted both the appellants as indicated above.

(3.) The case of the defence is that they have been falsely implicated in this case and the deceased Shanti Kumari committed suicide of her own as she was in mental depression. There was neither any demand of dowry nor she was pressurised by the accused-persons to commit suicide.