SHRAWAN BISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellant Shrawan Bishwakarma along with two other accused namely Budhan Vishwakarma and Neera Devi were tried together for the charge under Section 304 -B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau by his Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.1998 and 01.04.1998 respectively in Sessions Trial No. 387 of 1993 convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. So far the other two co -accused Budhan Vishwakarma and Neera Devi is concerned, they were acquitted from the charges by the Trial Court. Against the said Judgment of conviction and order of. sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) THE case relates to unnatural death of Saraswati Devi @ Bimla Devi on 15.04.1993 in the house of the appellant, i.e. the husband of the deceased. The informant Kameshwar Vishwakarma (P.W. -2) lodged a written report on 16.04.1993 before the Police which was registered as F.I.R. against the present appellant and two other accused persons (since acquitted). In the written report, the informant alleged that his daughter Saraswati Devi @ Bimla Devi was married to the present appellant Shrawan Bishwakarma of village Rabda and after the marriage, his son -in -law i.e. the appellant started demanding one scooter and cash of Rs. 5,000/ - by way of dowry but, since the informant due to his financial incapacity could not meet his demand and therefore, the appellant started torturing and ill treating his daughter.

(3.) MR . A.K. Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant, submitted that the present appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court with the aid of Section 113 -B of the Indian Evidence Act by drawing presumption against him. According to the learned Counsel, no presumption under Section 113 -B of the Evidence Act could have been drawn by the Trial Court against the appellant because the prosecution failed to prove the main ingredient of the offence namely, that the appellant demanded dowry and tortured or ill treated the deceased soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. In this regard, he referred the evidence of the informant P.W. -2 and submitted that P.W. -2, in paragraph -9 of his evidence has stated that he had no knowledge as to how his daughter died.