KAMDEO MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-5-1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 1992, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and three years under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Smt. Padum Devi was married with the appellant in the year 1986 and, at the time of marriage, dowry was given. After the marriage, a Scooter was demanded by the accused persons but, in lieu thereof, a Hero Moped was given. After one year of the marriage, the appellant started demanding service from the informant, in lieu of the land of the informant which was taken by the Central Coalfields Limited. The informant expressed his inability as the service was already given to his son. Thereafter the appellant began to torture his deceased wife and whenever she came to her Naihar she used to complain about the torture meted out to her by the appellant and she has expressed apprehension of being murdered, if the demand of the appellant is not fulfilled. It is further alleged that a month prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant threatened the informant with dire consequences if the said demand of service is not fulfilled. On 26-7-1991, the father of the appellant came to the house of the informant and informed him that his daughter was missing from the house, whereupon the informant immediately rushed to the house of the appellant and, ultimately he learnt that the dead body of his deceased daughter was taken out of a well. Accordingly, it was suspected by the informant that the accused persons, after killing his daughter, thrown her dead body into the well and were trying to give it a colour of suicide.

(3.) SECONDLY , Mr. Bajaj argued that the demand of service is not a dowry. In my opinion, service is certainly a property and it will come within the definition of dowry and it has been rightly held so by the Trial court.