R.K.MERATHIA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.1.1992 passed by Shri Kali Dayal Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1991, convicting the appellants under Section 304B, 498A and 201, IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 304B. No separate sentence was passed under Section 498A, IPC. They were also sentenced to RI for one year under Section 201, IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) ON 16.7.1990 at about 7.45 p.m., fardbeyan of the informant -Munsi Mandal (PW 11) was recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW 14). The informant stated that his daughter -Kaushalaya Devi (deceased) aged about 16 years was married with Kongress Mandal (appellant No. 6), son of Piyari Mandal (appellant No. 1) in the month of 'Vaishaikh' of the year 1988 according to the Hindu Rites. As per the village custom, she came back to her father's house. The second marriage (Gauna) was performed in 'Aghan' of the year 1989, when Kaushalaya was sent to her in -laws house and since then she was residing there. Four days prior to the date of occurrence, Jiblal Mandal (PW 2), the father of the informant and grandfather of Kaushalaya went to bring back Kaushalaya but her in -laws did not send her and the appellants demanded a wrist watch from him saying that the said demand has not been fulfilled since the marriage and unless the same is given Kaushalya will not be sent back and she will be killed, Informant further stated that in -laws of Kaushalaya were making demand for wrist watch since the time of her marriage which he could not fulfill due to his poverty. Kaushalaya told to her grand -father that the appellants are treating her cruelly and on occasions they beat her and do not provide her food because the wrist watch was not given. Jiblal Mandal returned and narrated the aforesaid facts to the informant. On 16.7.1990 in the evening, the informant was proceeding to Soluraidih village to meet his daughter when in the way, his brother -in -law (sister's husband) Sahdeo Mandal (PW 1), who is also a resident of Soluraidih met him and informed him that Kaushalaya has been killed by the appellants as the demand for the wrist watch was not fulfilled. He also informed the informant that the dead body of Kaushalaya has been taken away for cremation. Informant reported the matter to police alleging that the appellants by entering into a conspiracy with an intent to realize dowry from him ill - treated his daughter, killed her and are in a bid to cremate her dead body without informing him or the police to destroy the evidence of their guilt. During investigation, the half burnt dead body of Kaushalaya was seized and sent for postmortem. The defence was that Kaushalaya fell in the well by accident and died due to drowning. 15 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW 1, Sahdeo Mandal, the brother -in -law of the informant and PW 6, Mahadeo Mandal, the brother of PW 1 are important witness. They both reside in Soluraidih village where Kaushalaya was residing with her in -laws. PW 11 -Munsi Mandal is the informant and PW 12 Jiblal Mandal is the father of informant. PW 14 is the Investigating Officer. Defence also examined three witnesses.
(3.) THE evidence of doctor (PW 7), who conducted the postmortem and the postmortem report are of no much relevance. No definite opinion could be given regarding the cause of death as the body was practically burnt in cremation. However, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no congestion in the neck and the thyroid bone and cricoid cartilage were intact and that nothing obvious was found to make out the case of murder. Regarding the demand of wrist watch, it is submitted that the evidence are inconsistent PWs 1, 6, 11 and 12 are relatives of the deceased and they have made out a case of demand though it has also come in the evidence of PW 12 that the relations between the parties were cordial. Kaushalaya used to visit her parents but there is nothing to show that she complained about any such demand and torture and that any action was taken by the prosecution party in this regard. He further submitted that PW 12, the grandfather of the deceased, stated that PW 8 -Bhim Mandal (brother of the deceased) used to accompany his sister -Kaushalaya to and fro her sasural but PW 8 has not said anything about any such demand or torture. He further submitted that it has come in the evidence that 'janta' watch worth Rs. 300/ - 350/ - was demanded at the time of marriage and at the time of 'Gauna' which the informant promised to give. The informant said that he incurred expense of about Rs. 10,000/ - in the marriage. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that it cannot be believed that for a watch worth Rs. 300/ - -350/ -, the appellants will kill the deceased. ;