DASRATH SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20 -9 -1995 and order of sentence dated 22 -9 -1995 passed by Shri Kumar Ganesh Dutt, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The appellants were further convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. However, the sentences were ordered to run consecutively.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief as stated is that on 7 -1 -1991, a first information report was lodged on the basis of the written information made to the Superintendent of Police, Giridih dated 1 -7 -1991. It is alleged by the informant that his daughter Uma Devi was married with appellant No. 3 Rajendra Kumar Sao but there was no cordial relationship with her in -laws because the accused persons were demanding more dowry. It is also alleged that the accused persons used to torture her for non -fulfilment of the demand of dowry. It is also alleged that his daughter had filed a criminal case earlier in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih being numbered 748 of 1990. The informant got information on 29 -6 -1991 that his daughter had hanged herself and on this information, the informant rushed to Village Lotaki. He found the dead body of his daughter lying at the police station. The post mortem was also held by a Medical Board and it was found that his daughter was murdered and it was not a case of suicide.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Court below has committed error in convicting the appellants as none of the independent witnesses supported the prosecution case in any manner. Except the informant (P.W.1), not a single witness stated anything against the appellants either in respect of torturing the deceased at any point of time or for demand of dowry. It is further argued that there was no any bond executed on behalf of the appellants earlier to the instant case nor such bond has been produced by the prosecution to substantiate such allegation. It is also argued that the conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is also not legal as no charge was framed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for the said offence. It is pointed out during the course of argument that the appellant No. 2 (Mundrika Devi) died during the pendency of the appeal. Since there is no cogent evidence to substantiate the story of torturing or abetment, this judgment of conviction is fit to be set aside.