ANIL RANA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant Anil Rana stands convicted under Sec.304B and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to serve R.I. for 10 years and 3 years respectively in S.T. No. 344 of 1991 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge at Hazaribagh.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that Anil Rana was married with Anita, daughter of the informant Kewal Rana in the year 1988. Further stated, Anita used to visit regularly her parents at village Bonga and her Sasural at village Hazandhamna. Prosecution case is that on 21.5.1989, Anil Rana came for Bidai of Anita at Bhurkunda and when they were going back on 22.5.89, Ami Rana asked the informant to provide him Motor Cycle, television and Rs. 5000.00 in cash. The informant requested Anil Rana that at the moment he has got no money, thereafter they went away. Further stated on 04.06.1989, someone from Hazaridhamna went to the Sasural of the informant and informed P.W. 5, Ishwardayal Rana, brother -in -law of the informant that Anita has died in the night of 02.06.1989. P.W. 5 thereafter informed the brother of the informant Jugal Rana (P.W. 1) about the incident who, in turn, informed the informant. After which the informant went along with his brother and brother -in -law to village Hazandhamna on 05.06.1989 where he was informed by the appellant and his father that Anita has expired on 02.06.1989 due to diarrhoea. Thereafter when informant asked him why he was not informed, both of them became angry and Anil Rana said whatever he has to do, he has done. According to the informant, Anil Rana has got the dead body of Anita disposed of in the morning of 03.06.1989. The informant tried to find out what has happened to Anita and he could learn from villagers and the neighbours where Anita was last brought by the appellant that her daughter has not been ill. According to them Anita was killed by Anil Rana and his parents for non -fulfillment of dowry demands. This information was given to the Officer Incharge of Barhi police station on the basis of which Barhi P.S. Case No. 77 of 1989 was registered under Sec.304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three persons. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet against Anil Rana and his parents for the above offences.

(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred on the grounds that he learned lower court has committed mistake of law and facts. It is further submitted that there was no evidence on record that Anil Rana used to demand dowry. It is also asserted that the prosecution has failed to prove that Anita was subjected to any torture and cruelty in connection of non fulfillment of dowry demands before her death. It is also asserted that the deceased met natural death due to illness, dysentery and vomiting in spite of treatment given by doctor at Barhi. In the memo of appeal, it is further asserted that the defence witnesses were not given proper consideration and disbelieved without any cogent reason on record, therefore the appellant Anil Rana be acquitted of the charges. These points were, further argued strenuously before me. Mr. T.R. Bajaj further pointed out that even in cases under Sec.304B of the I.P.C., primary burden remains on the prosecution to prove that death has occurred in consequence of the dowry demands and the torture for it must be within close proximity of the alleged death. The learned Counsel further pointed out that learned lower court while accepting the prosecution version failed to consider that Anita was being treated by D. W. 1, which has also been supported by independent witnesses. D.W. 2, Sarpanch and D.W. 4, Mukhia of the Village.