RAJA MISHRA; PRAKASH MISHRA; BRIJ BIHARI MISHRA; SHAIL KUMARI DEVI; NIRMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2003 and the order of sentence dated 26.02.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1993/90 of 2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-Ill, Gopalganj where by each of the five appellants has been convicted u/s. 304B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and respectively sentenced to R.I. for 10 years, R.I. for 3 years, R.I. for 2 years and R.I. for 2 years.

(2.) The fard-beyan (Ext-2) of the case was recorded by ASI R.K. Singh on the statement of the informant Ramadhar Tiwary, the father of the deceased Durgawati Devi at Gopalganj Police Station on 17.09.1989 at 9:00 A.M. The informant stated that about 4 years ago he had married his eldest daughter Durgawati (deceased) to Prakash Mishra (appellant) son of Raja Mishra (appellant) and at the time of Tilak ceremony he (informant) had given cash of Rs. 5,000.00 utensil set, watch, radio etc. but when Barat had arrived at the time of marriage, the father (Raja Mishra) had demanded Motor-cycle but on his (informant's) request marriage was performed and they took Durgawati to their house. She (deceased) remained in her Sasural for about one year. During this period, on intervals, he (informant) used to go to deceased's Sasural to meet her and whenever he met her she complained that the appellants used to beat her and abuse her saying that she would be finished, if the demand of Motor-cycle was not fulfilled. He (informant) further stated that he persuaded his daughter for keeping patience and he also persuaded Raja Mishra (appellant) not to torture and harass her (deceased) and that he (informant) was a poor man and he was not in a position to fulfil the demand. At this, all the appellants engaged into a quarrelsome talk with him and they asked to take his daughter with him, if he was unable to fulfil the demand. He (informant) further stated that since his daughter was terrified he brought her with him to her Maika. She lived there for about a year. About six months back his son-in-law Prakash Mishra (appellant) came to his (informant's) house and requested him (informant) to send her (deceased) saying that he (Prakash) will ask his parents not to torture and harass her (deceased). Believing his (Prakash Mishra's) words he (informant) sent his daughter (deceased) with him (Prakash Mishra) to her Sasural. The (informant) further alleged that about 20 days ago Prakash Mishra and Raja Mishra (appellants) came to him and they asked to fulfil the demand of Motor-cycle or to give Rs. 17,000.00 in lieu of it and they also threatened that he (informant) will not be able to see his daughter (deceased) again, if the demand was not fulfilled. He (informant) requested them (Prakash Mishra and Raja Mishra) that he was a poor man and he had to marry one another daughter, hence, he had no capacity to fulfil the demand, whereupon they threatened him again. The (informant) further stated that on the last Friday when he went to meet his daughter (deceased) he found Prakash Mishra and Raja Mishra (appellants) and while he was asking about the welfare of his daughter (deceased) all the appellants assembled there and they fell upon to assault him asking to flee away, else he (informant) would be killed. Then he (informant) left appellants' house in order to save his life and had learnt from Bihari Mishra and other neighbours there that due to non-fulfilment of the demand of motor-cycle the appellants killed the deceased in the night of 13.09.1989 and they disappeared the dead-body. The informant alleged that due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, the appellants killed his daughter and disappeared the dead-body. On the basis of the fard-beyan FIR (Ext-1) was lodged and the investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the appellants who were put on trial wherein they have been convicted and sentenced, as above.

(3.) As many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of them P.W. 4 Ramadhar Tiwary is the informant himself. P.W. 1 Sanjay Tiwary and P.W. 2 Pramod Tiwary are the younger brothers of the deceased. P.W. 3 Awadh Bihari Mishra @ Bihari Mishra is a neighbour of the appellants but this witness has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 5 Dinesh Kumar Mishra has turned hostile and he deposed that during night he woke up on hearing hulla and saw that the house of appellant Raja Mishra was burning in fire and people were trying to douse the fire. This witness has not said anything about the allegations as levelled by the informant and he has denied to have made any statement before the I.O. supporting the case of prosecution during investigation. P.W. 6 Ram Naresh Mishra is a formal witness who has proved the writings and signature on the FIR marked Ext-1. P.W. 7 Majrul Haque is also a formal witness who has proved the writings and signature on the fard-beyan marked Ext-2. The I.O. of the case was not examined by the prosecution.