RADHA KANT YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201, 1.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and R.I. for 7 years respectively for the aforesaid, offences. They have preferred this appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence.

(2.) AS per the written report of one Ganesh Yadav (P.W. 1) submitted before the police, Ext. 1, the prosecution case is that Kavita Devi (deceased) was his daughter and she was married to Pradip (appellant No. 3) three years prior to her death. About 2 -3 months prior to date of filing of the Fardbeyan, which was on 22.9.1992, there was some quarrel between Kavita Devi and his Samandhi, Damad and Samandhin. Receiving this information, the informant had gone to the village Pasai where his Samandhi and Samandhin had complained to him that his daughter was a rogue and was always quarrelling in the house. When the informant enquired from her and also tried to make her pacified, then her daughter informed him that her mother -in -law, father -in -law, brother -in -law and the husband together are always prone to assault her and also perpetuated in many times to torture her in various ways. Then there was Panchayat in presence of Mukhia of Pasai and other villagers and in that Panchayat the appellants had promised that his daughter will not be put to any harassment and thereafter the informant had returned back and hisdaughter started living in her in -laws house. On 21.9.1992 at about 6.00 p.m, son of one Sukumar Mahamarick of village Pasai came to the house of the informant and informed him that Kavita Devi has been poisoned by Pradip Yadav, Mahesh Yadav, Radhakant Yadav, Ahtlya Devi at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter they had disappeared the dead body. Receiving the information, the informant went to the said village along with his mother Jhalak Devi, cousin brother Nukul Yadav, Jamai Narayan Yadav and arrived there at 12.00 noon and thereafter they found the house of his daughter locked and no body was available. On inquiry, Bichu Mahamarick, Kanti Manjhi and Kedar Mahamarick informed that his son -in -law, his (son -in -law) brother, his (son -in -law) mother administered poison to his daughter, assaulted her and thereafter disappeared her dead body. Then the informant and others started searching for his daughter in the village and they further came to know that these persons with the help of Kumode Mahamarick and Ganga Mahamarick had disappeared the dead body because in the night they did not go to the police station and thereafter in the following morning the matter was reported to the police. On the basis of the written report, a police case was registered and the formal F.I.R., Ext. 4, was drawn.

(3.) THE defence of the appellant Radha Kant Yadav was that when the informant had gone to the village, he was not in the house, rather he was in the house of Supi Mahamarick and the rest of the accused persons were in the house. The allegation that the house was locked was denied. It was also denied that any assault was made on the deceased or any Panchayat was held.