KRISHNA RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Krishna Ram was put on trial along with his grand -father Khakhan Ram to face charge under Sec. 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code for causing dowry death of his wife Lalita Devi. The trial Court having found the appellant guilty convicted him under Sec. 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as transpired from First Information Report as well as evidence of the informant Ram Chandra Ram (P.W. 1) is that Lalita Devi, sister of the informant was married to the appellant Krishna Ram in the year 1989. After the marriage, the appellant started demanding Rs. 10,000.00 and also a Luna Motor Cycle as well as golden ring, but the said demand could not be fulfilled as the informant was not capable of to afford the same. Further case is that in the month of October, 1992 when Lalita Devi came to her parent's house, she showed injuries inflicted upon her person and told them that she will not go to her in -law's house as they would kill her on account of non - fulfillment of the demand of dowry. Thereafter the informant on getting knowledge of all these things came before the appellant and his grand -father and paid Rs. 5000.00 so that they may keep his sister properly. Thereafter the appellant came and made promise to keep his wife with all dignity and took her to his house. However, on 13.12.1992 accused persons killed her by administering poison and wrong information was given to his brother Laxman Ram (not examined) that his sister is ill, upon which Laxman Ram came to the place of his sister and found his sister dead. When Laxman Ram felt that accused persons are intending to consign the dead body to flame surreptitiously, he objected it by saying that they first killed his sister and now are trying to dispose of the dead body. Upon it accused persons were about to assault him but he left the place and informed to the police. Statement made in the First Information Report does suggest that police on reaching place of occurrence took the dead body in his custody and got the post -mortem done but the Officer - in -charge did not take any effective steps to get the culprits booked though accused persons had caused death of his sister and due to that reason the informant Ram Chandra Ram gave written report (Ext. 5) on 8.1.1993, upon which case was registered and a formal First Information Report (Ext. 4) was drawn and the matter was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer (not examined), who took statements of the witnesses and collected post - mortem examination report (Ext. 7) of the postmortem conducted on the dead body by Dr. Kamendra Singh (P.W. 14) on 15.12.1992 in reference to Station Diary Entry No. 10 of 1992 of Bishrampur Police Station. According to Dr. Kamendra Singh (P.W. 14) he did not find any injury either external or internal and even the cause of death could not be ascertained. However, according to him, viscera was preserved for its chemical examination by Forensic Science Laboratory. It transpired from the record of the case that said viscera was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna and on being examined by P.K. Jha, Senior Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, 'Mythyl Parathion' was detected which is an organo phosphorous pesticide highly poisonous substance. The said report has been proved by P.W. 15 as Ext. 8.

(3.) THE prosecution in this case examined as many as 15 witnesses. Of them P.W. 1 Ram Chandra Ram is the informant. P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 10, P.W. 11, P.W. 12 all have been declared hostile. P.W. 13 Ramkrishna Mishra is a formal witness, who has proved the formal First Information Report, written report and the charge -sheet as Exts. 4, 5 and 6 respectively. P.W. 4 Ramkesh Ram though has been declared hostile but on being examined by the prosecution, he did admit that he had made statement before the police that when Lalita Devi had come to her parent's house, she showed injury and had also told them that she apprehends danger to her life and Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India conveyed to them that she would not go to her in law's place until and unless money is paid.