Lakshman Uraon, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.5.1995 and 19.5.1995 respectively, passed by Sri Ashok Kumar Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further be has been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, directing both the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) INFORMANT Rengtu Bhagat (PW 7), father of deceased Jasoda Bhagat of village Kallkapur, had given his daughter Jasoda Bhagat in, marriage to this appellant Hari Ram Bhagat of Village -Basila in the year, 1990. Jasoda had given birth to a child who was 11 months old at the time of incident. On 28.4.1993 at about 3.45 p.m. Nagendra Bhagat (PW 5) of Village Basila went to him and asked him to go to his daughter's Sasural immediately. At about 4.00 p.m. the informant along with his villagers went to the Sasural of Jasoda Bhagat at Village Basila. He saw the house of his son -in -law burnt. The door was open. Inside the room he saw the dead body of his daughter Jasoda Bhagat completely burnt. Her tongue was protruded and was pressed between the teeth. She was found near, the western side of Doll (place for keeping food -grains). Half burnt roof was fallen on the dead body of Jasoda Bhagat. The other house hold articles were in normal position. Neither the appellant nor his family members were found there. When enquired, the villagers informed that appellant had gone outside his home. Hari Das Singh and Arvind Bhagat, co -villagers of the appellant, had seen smoke coming out of the house in between 2.30 to 3.00 p.m., They rushed there and raised alarm whereupon the villagers assembled there and extinguished the fire. The informant Rengtu Bhagat has alleged that at the time of marriage in the year. 1990, out of the dowry amount of Rs. 6,000/ -, he had paid Rs. 27,00/ - besides one wrist watch and a golden ring. After one month of the marriage, Hare Ram Bhagat started demanding golden chain and picked up quarrel. He was not keeping his wife properly in his village home and several times he had reached his wife to her parents' home. The informant used to send his daughter to her Sasural after pacifying her, although his daughter was not willing to go to her sasural. The informant has alleged that due to non -fulfillment of the dowry demand, his son -in -law Hare Ram Bhagat in between 12 to 2.00 p.m. murdered Jasoda Bhagat and to screen the evidence, set the house on fire and fled away. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the informant, recorded on 28.4.1993 at about 7.00 p.m. by the Officer -in -charge, Potka Police Station. FIR (Ext. 3) was drawn up, on which the informant put his LTI and the case was registered. The prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses to bring home the charges, levelled against the accused/appellant under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. PW 1 Janardan Singh and PW 2 Arjun Bhagat, both of Village -Basila, when returned their home on 28.4.1993, came to know that the house of Hare Ram Bhagat was burnt in between 2.00 and 2.30 p.m. and the villagers had extinguished the fire. They saw the wife of Hare Ram Bhagat dead due to burn Injury inside the house. PW 3 Yogendra Nath Besra is a witness on the inquest report on which he and Janardan Singh PW 1 have signed -Exts. 1 and 1/a PW 4 Sudeshan Bhagat saw the house of the appellant on fire. The villagers had scaled over the tiles. He saw Jasoda Bhagat, wife of Hare Ram Bhagat, completely burnt. PW 5 Narendra Nath Bhagat is a hostile witness. PW 6 Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary conducted the post -mortem examination on the dead body of Yasoda Bhagat, PW 8 Sunil Kumar Bhagat is the son of the informant, PW 7. PW 9 Satyendra Prasad is the Investigating Officer of this case.
(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that PWs 1, 4 and 5, no doubt, have stated that the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was cordial but PW 1 and PW 5 are the cousins of the appellant. PW 4 is the wife of PW 5. They have contradicted their earlier statements, made before the police that there was quarrel in between the deceased and the appellant. These witnesses have given a go -by to their earlier statements only to save the accused/appellant. Hence the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved their statements, deposed in the Court. On the other hand, the learned Sessions Judge has believed the evidence of PW 7 and his son PW 8 Sunil Kumar Bhagat regarding torture to Jasoda Bhagat for demand of dowry, made by this appellant, the evidence of Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary PW 6. the evidence of the Investigating Officer" PW 9 and came to the conclusion that only for dowry this appellant murdered his wife and to screen from the legal punishment, caused disappearance of the legal evidence by setting his house on fire and fled away, resulting conviction under Section 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant thereunder.;