PREM NARAIN SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that appellant no. 2-Pandeo Sao has died during pendency of the appeal. Therefore, he is not pressing this appeal on his behalf. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed on behalf of appellant no. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.2003 and 21.11.2003 respectively, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar, in Sessions Case No. 79 of 1995, convicting the appellants under Sections 304-B/34, 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code; imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 304B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 60% of the fine was to be paid to the informant-father of the deceased. The sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that a fardbeyan was lodged by Laldeo Sao (P.W. 13) on Friday (8.11.1991) at about 10.15 A.M. in the hospital to the effect that his daughter Munia Devi (deceased) was married about six years back with appellant no. 1-Prem Narain Sao but he used to commit "Marpit" and demand dowry, about which, Panchayti was held twice but such torture continued. Appellant No. 2 (father-in-law), appellant no. 3 (mother-in-law) also used to commit such torture. On the last Tuesday, two daughters of the informant Soni Devi (P.W. 14) and Kiran Kumari (P.W. 2) went to bring Munia Devi on the occasion of "Chhath". They insisted for 'Bidai' but it was not done by appellant no. 1-Prem Narain Sao. P.W. 14 and P.W. 2 came back. Appellant No. 1-Prem Narain Sao told them that he will bring Munia Devi on Saturday but on the date of Fardbeyan at about 6 A.M. in the morning, one villager (P.W. 7) who had been to the village of the daughter of the informant was told by one Shankar Sao that she was administered poison, on which P.W. 7 reached there and found that one Dr. A. Ekka was treating her after which she was taken to the hospital by P.W. 7. On return, P.W. 2 told the informant that poison was administered to Munia Devi who was taken to hospital in the vehicle of P.W. 7. The informant went to hospital and found that Munia Devi was lying senseless and froth was coming out from her nose. During treatment, she died after one hour. The informant alleged that the appellants have together killed Munia Devi by administering poison.

(3.) The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 are hearsay witnesses. P.Ws. 2 and 14 Kiran Kumari and Soni Devi are the daughters of the informant who went to bring the deceased. P.W. 5-Sunari Devi is the mother of the deceased. P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 Parmeshwar Sah, Lakhan Sah and Dhunnu Shah have not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 9 Siddh Nath is the doctor who conducted post mortem. He provisionally found that the death was due to poisoning awaiting the viscera report. P.W. 10 Bihari Prasad Yadav is a witness who accompanied Prem Narain Sao to call doctor Ekka fof treating the deceased. P.W. 11 Shanker Ram is the driver of the vehicle, in which deceased was taken to hospital. P.W. 12 Bhuneshwar Singh is a hearsay villager. P.W. 13 Lal Deo Sao is the informant. P.W. 15 Basu Deo Sao is a formal witness.