PIYARI MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.1.1992 passed by Shri Kali Dayal Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1991, convicting the appellants under Section 304B, 498A and 201, IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 304B. No separate sentence was passed under Section 498A, IPC. They were also sentenced to RI for one year under Section 201, IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) ON 16.7.1990 at about 7.45 p.m., fardbeyan of the informant -Munsi Mandal (PW 11) was recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW 14). The informant stated that his daughter -Kaushalaya Devi (deceased) aged about 16 years was married with Kongress Mandal (appellant No. 6), son of Piyari Mandal (appellant No. 1) in the month of 'Vaishaikh' of the year 1988 according to the Hindu Rites. As per the village custom, she came back to her father's house. The second marriage (Gauna) was performed in 'Aghan' of the year 1989, when Kaushalaya was sent to her in -laws house and since then she was residing there. Four days prior to the date of occurrence, Jiblal Mandal (PW 2), the father of the informant and grandfather of Kaushalaya went to bring back Kaushalaya but her in -laws did not send her and the appellants demanded a wrist watch from him saying that the said demand has not been fulfilled since the marriage and unless the same is given Kaushalya will not be sent back and she will be killed, Informant further stated that in -laws of Kaushalaya were making demand for wrist watch since the time of her marriage which he could not fulfill due to his poverty. Kaushalaya told to her grand -father that the appellants are treating her cruelly and on occasions they beat her and do not provide her food because the wrist watch was not given. Jiblal Mandal returned and narrated the aforesaid facts to the informant. On 16.7.1990 in the evening, the informant was proceeding to Soluraidih village to meet his daughter when in the way, his brother -in -law (sister's husband) Sahdeo Mandal (PW 1), who is also a resident of Soluraidih met him and informed him that Kaushalaya has been killed by the appellants as the demand for the wrist watch was not fulfilled. He also informed the informant that the dead body of Kaushalaya has been taken away for cremation. Informant reported the matter to police alleging that the appellants by entering into a conspiracy with an intent to realize dowry from him ill - treated his daughter, killed her and are in a bid to cremate her dead body without informing him or the police to destroy the evidence of their guilt. During investigation, the half burnt dead body of Kaushalaya was seized and sent for postmortem.

(3.) THE evidence of doctor (PW 7), who conducted the postmortem and the postmortem report are of no much relevance. No definite opinion could be given regarding the cause of death as the body was practically burnt in cremation. However, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no congestion in the neck and the thyroid bone and cricoid cartilage were intact and that nothing obvious was found to make out the case of murder.