CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) THE sole appellant has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.02.2002/14.02.2002 in Sessions Case No. 119 of 1987/369 of 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jamtara. The appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and he has been found guilty for the alternate charge under Section 304(B) I.P.C. also. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The charge for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has failed and the appellant has been acquitted of the said charge.
(2.) THE prosecution case as disclosed in the fardbeyan of Lakshmi Narain Tiwary, who is the father of the deceased, is that his daughter Veena Devi was married to the accused Anil Tiwary in the year 1983. His daughter was blessed with a daughter about four months prior to the incident. On 18.02.1987, he had gone to the house of his daughter at village Kamaldih where in the night his daughter informed him that she was harassed for demand of dowry. He persuaded his daughter to stay there and came back on 19.02.1987. He used to plead with his son in law with folded hands that he is not capable of giving any dowry. On 21.02.1987, he heard a rumour that his daughter has been grievously injured in the previous night by her husband Anil Tiwary. He, on receiving such information proceeded to Kamaldih with his cousin, Surendra Nath Tiwary. They enquired about the incident from the villagers of the Kamaldih, who informed that at about 11.30 p.m. in the previous night, Anil Tiwary raised a hulla of "Chor Chor", however, when the villagers went to his house they did not find any sign of theft there. The villagers informed him that Anil Tiwary told them that her wife was assaulted by the thieves. He has further stated that the villagers informed him that they called the doctor and carried his daughter to Narainpur hospital. He, therefore, suspected that his son in law has killed his daughter for dowry. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Lakshmi Narain Tiwary, the first information report being Narainpur P. S. Case No. 11 of 1987 was registered against the appellant Anil Tiwary. After the investigation, charge - sheet was filed and cognizance of the offence was taken. Charges under Section 302 and alternatively under Section 304(B) I.P.C. and also under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the appellant. During the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and the fardbeyan of the informant, formal F.I.R, seizure list dated 21.02.1987 and seizure list dated 22.02.1987 were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Learned trial judge found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 as well as under Section 304(B) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. The learned trial judge held that non examination of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who held post -mortem examination over the dead - body, has not caused any prejudice to the accused and the prosecution has been able to prove its case which is based on circumstantial evidence.
(3.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.;