GOVIND GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 09.08.2002 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2002, passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 35 of 2001, arising out of G.R. Case No. 2302/99, Churchu P.S. Case No. 9/99, corresponding to T.R. No. 942/2000, whereby and whereunder, the learned Court has been pleased to hold the appellants guilty under Section 304B and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of prosecution as per the written report of the informant Mahavir Yadav, PW-6 is that his sister Nagiya Devi aged about 19 years was married to accused Mahendra Yadav in the year 1997. After 7-8 months of marriage Mahendra Yadav, his mother Kishni Devi, his elder brother Govind Gope, his Bhabhi Muniya Devi, Prameshwar Gope and his wife Jhalo Devi told the victim girl Nagiya Devi to bring a sum of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. from her parental home. This information was sent through the victim girl Nagiya Devi to her parents. As they could not fulfill such demand Nagiya Devi was subjected to torture physically and mentally by beating and abusing her. It is also stated that the deceased Nagiya Devi when she came to her parental house on the occasion of 'Karma Puja', she narrated to her parents and brothers about the demand of the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a T.V. as a dowry. Thereupon the informant Mahavir Yadav along with Punit Yadav went to the sasural of his sister and discussed the matter about dowry whereupon accused specifically stated to the informant that anything could happen to his sister on failure to meet the aforesaid demands. It is alleged that in the evening of 24.199 accused Govind elder brother of the husband of the victim Nagiya Devi came to the informant house and informed that deceased Nagiya Devi had left the house and gone somewhere else. On receiving this information, the informant Mahavir Yadav started making enquiry from Govind. Thereupon Govind Gope became nervous. Thereafter, the informant made search of his sister Nagiya Devi in the house of his relatives but victim girl Nagiya Devi could not be traced out. Thereafter, the informant Mahavir Yadav along with his brother-in-law Prayag Yadav, cousin brother Gobardhan Yadav, one Dashrath Yadav and 6 to 7 villagers went to the sasural (inlaws home) of his sister Nagiya Devi and met with her husband Mahendra Yadav and other members and made enquiry from them but they did not give any satisfactory explanation about the disappearance of her sister Nagiya Devi. Thereafter, the informant Mahavir Yadav went to Churchu P.S. and lodged a written report. The informant Mahavir Yadav had the belief that accused persons had murdered his sister Nagiya Devi due to demand of dowry of T.V. and Rs.20,000/- and her dead body was concealed somewhere by the aforesaid accused persons.

(3.) On the basis of the said written report filed by the informant Mahavir Yadav, Churchu P.S. Case No. 9/99 for the offence under Sections 304B , and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted. The learned C.J.M. took cognizance of this case and committed this case to the court of sessions. Charges were framed and trial was held and at the conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.