SARJU MODI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 21-1-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 27/95 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma held the appellants guilty under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for ten (10) years under Section 304-B, I.P.C. and further sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three (3) years under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and directed both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that one Sarita Devi, daughter of Govind Modi, Informant, aged seventeen (17) years, was married to appellant Raj Kumar Modi two years ago. One year prior to the alleged date of occurrence, Sarita Devi had come from Hirodih (her sasural) to her Naihar and said that her in-laws are demanding colour T.V. and for that, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law (Devar) and husband always assault her and torture her and due to their torturing meted out to her by them, she has come to Naihar. The informant stated that he would give Colour T.V. as and when situation permits. Thereafter, the informant along with his daughter Sarita Devi and others went to his daughter's sasural and said there that he would give T.V. when time would come. Thereupon, appellants Sarju Modi (Samdhi) and Sakuna Devi (Samdhan) asked the informant to go home, then informant returned with his men. Next day, he again went to see his daughter at Hirodih, he found everything correct and he had promised to give T.V. to his Samdhi and Samdhan. But on 30-3-1994, he got information from one Faudi Modi that his daughter has died. On getting this information, informant immediately went to sasural of his daughter and found her dead. He suspected that his daughter Sarita Devi has been murdered by the appellants because they always assaulted her for the demand of T.V. On the basis of the information of the informant, police registered a case bearing Jainagar P.S. Case No. 26/94 and police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants.

(3.) From the trend of the statement of the appellants under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses, it appears that defence took a plea that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the case.