VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been directed by the appellant named above against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 99 of the 1998 by Shri Anil Kumar Choudhary, Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo and Tenughat, whereby and whereunder all the appellants were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. However, they were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 4ue to legal infirmity i.e., want of sanction of the prescribed authority as well as the demand of dowry not being the consideration of marriage. Co -accused Raju Sao was found not guilty of all the charges aforesaid and he was acquitted.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) of PW 2, Manoj Kumar Sao, the cousin brother of Brijbala Devi, the deceased of this case, recorded by Shri Upendra Kumar Ram, S.I. of Dugda P.S. on 24.8.1997 at 18.45 hours at Dugda Basti P.S. Dugda, District -Bokaro regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 17.30 hours in the house of the appellant. The case was instituted on the basis of the said fardbeyan by drawing formal FIR on that very day at 20.30 hours and the said fardbeyan and the formal FIR were received in the Court empowered to take cognizance on 26.8.1997. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW 2, the informant was returning to his house situate in Dugda Basti from Dugda Market on 24.8.1997 and when he reached near the house of appellant in Dugda Basti he found several women standing near the said house and one of them told this informant that Brijbala Devi is being assaulted in her matrimonial home and on this information he kept his cycle there and went inside the house of the appellant where he saw rope around the neck of Brijbala Devi aforesaid which was being pulled by appellant, Rameshwar Sao and at that time appellants, Sukar Sao and Kaushalya Devi had caught the hands and legs respectively of Brijbala Devi and acquitted accused, Raju Sao was standing there watching the incident. The prosecution case further is that the appellants became nervous seeing him and all the appellants and the acquitted accused, Raju Sao fled away from there. It is alleged that he touched the hand of Brijbala Devi and found her dead and from there he rushed to his house and informed his father PW 6, Narayan Sao regarding the incident and PW 1, Ramdas Sao, the father of the said deceased was also informed. The prosecutions case further is that the informant along with others came to the house of the appellants and found Brijbala Devi dead. The prosecution case further is that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with appellant. Rameshwar Sao fourteen years prior to the occurrence and she had a son born of the said wedlock. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the appellants used to treat the deceased with cruelty for demand of dowry which led to a case against the appellants in which they were found guilty and convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. But thereafter the matrimonial dispute was resolved and compromise was entered into between the appellants and the deceased and the said case was thereafter not further prosecuted, the further case of the prosecution is that on 16.8.97 appellant. Rameshwar Sao along with acquitted co -accused, Raju Sao had gone to the house of PW 1. Ramdas Sao at Chan -dipur in the company of the deceased where the appellant has demanded a motorcycle from P.W. 1 and he will properly keep the deceased with him if the motorcycle is provided to him, failing which the matrimonial dispute shall continue and the appellants returned to his house on 19.8.1997 with the deceased. It is also alleged that the deceased has been done to death due to the non -fulfillment of demand of motorcycle in dowry.
(3.) THE appellant have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that they have been falsely implicated in this case on mere suspicion. It has also been stated that Brijbala Devi, the deceased in this case has committed suicide by hanging herself. It has also been contended that appellants, Sukar Sao and Kaushalya Devi had gone to their daughters house at village -Kamlapur three days prior to the occurrence and they returned to their house in Dugda Basti at 6.30 p.m. on the day of the occurrence.;