KIRAN PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.5.1999 and 24.5.1999 respectively passed by learned Sessions Judge at Dhanbad in S.T. No. 9 of 1998 convicting the appellant under section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is as follows: -The fard beyan (Ext -3) was recorded at 11.30 A.M. on 22.8.1997 of Arjun Paswan ( the informant, P.W. 5 ) that he got information from Rampati Dusadh that his niece ( bhagni) Indu Devi was murdered by her in -laws whereupon he went to the place of her in -laws. He found his niece lying dead in the house. He enquired from Chandradeo Singh (co -accused) and father of the appellant about Indu Devi as to how she died on which he replied that her husband (the appellant) murdered her on that day at about 3 A.M. in the morning by throttling. It was further said that the informants brother -in -law Suresh Prasad (P.W. 4) had married his daughter Indu Devi with appellant in March 1995 according to Hindu rites. At the time of marriage cash and certain articles were given as gift and after some days of the marriage the in -laws of Indu Devi started demanding freeze and godrej almirah. It was further said that whenever the informants brother -in -law came to the sasural of Indu Devi he used to go to his place also to see him and he used to tell the informant that accused Chandradeo Singh was pressurizing for freeze and godrej almirah and her father -in -law and the appellant were torturing her for the same. It was alleged that for this reason Indu Devi was murdered by accused persons by throttling. On the basis of such fard beyan a formal FIR (Ext. -4) was drawn and a case under section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not brought on record, the first information received by the police. He further submitted that the inquest report was prepared at 6.30.A.M. i.e. much prior to the recording of the FIR. He further submitted that though FIR was recorded on 22.8.1997 but it was sent to the CJM on 25.8.1997 and there is no explanation for such delay. Therefore the whole prosecution case becomes doubtful.