BAHADUR YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of convict on and order of sentence dated ,30.7.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 528/98, whereby and whereunder the learned court below held the appellants guilty under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life under Section 302 IPC and three years RI under Section 201 IPC. However, no separate sentence has been passed under Section 120B IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that appellant Bahadur Yadav was married with Nirmala Devi, neice of the informant PW 5, Bhuneshwar Yadav in the year 1994 according to Hindu customs. Further case of the prosecution is that just one week earlier of the occurrence, the appellant no. 1 requested the parents of Nirmala that they should take back their daughter because they have not given one buffalo and Rs.10,000/ - as agreed by them during the marriage. According to the informant, the father of the deceased, PW 2 Baijnath Yadav expressed his inability to fulfil the demand, on which the appellant Bahadur Yadav went back threatening that they should reap the consequences of such refusal. According to the informant, after this PW 6 Indrajeet Yadav went to the house of the appellants to bring back the deceased but she was not allowed to come alongwith him by the appellants. Further case of the prosecution that is in the morning of 17th December, 97 appellant Bahadur Yadav came to his in -laws and informed that Nirmala along with his son has fled away from his house. This led to active search by the informant side till 19.12.97 when they came to know that two dead bodies were floating in a well situated in Hareya Dohar fields.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the learned trial court has convicted the appellants on circumstantial evidence which was incomplete and not reliable. According to Mr. RC. Tripathy, learned counsel for the appellants, the prosecution has failed to prove any dowry demands and further that due to non -fulfilment of such dowry demands, the appellants have committed the murder. According to Mr.Tripathy, the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, do not support the prosecution case at all. It is also pointed out that the conduct of the appellant Bahadur Yadav by informing his in -laws in the morning of 17.12.97 regarding missing of Nirmala and her son, makes the whole prosecution story false. It was also pointed out that the parents of the deceased have not lodged the FIR but the informant taking advantage of the circumstances lodged this false case with ulterior motive. According to Mr. Tripathy, not a single circumstance would be noted by the trial court to indicate the complicity of the appellants in the crime. He further suggested that the deceased might have caused death of her son out of anger and committed suicide by throwing herself in the well. In this context, the learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant was accompanying the informant's side in search of his wife and son. Therefore, the appellants may be acquitted of the charges.