D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE appellants, above named, were charged with, tried and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 7.9.2000 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. The sentence for life imprisonment was awarded to each of the appellants by order dated 11.9.2000. The case relates to the death caused by burn injury of the deceased Rina Talpatra, wife of the appellant No. 2 Ashok Kumar Talpatra, aged about 35 years. The injured had suffered burn injury at her matrimonial house at village Kaitha within the police station of Ramgarh. She was admitted to the plaint hospital Dhurwa at Hatia within the district of Ranchi. While she was undergoing medical treatment of her injury at the hospital, she died at the hospital on 14.1.1992. The information regarding the burn injury sustained by the deceased and her admission to the hospital for medical treatment, was conveyed to the mother of the deceased (PW 3).
(2.) THE case was registered on the basis of thefardbeyan of the informant Rita Mukherjee (PW 3), recorded by the police officer at Hazaribagh Sadar Police Stated on 15.2.1992, which was forwarded to the Ramgarh police station for registration of the case, and the investigation was taken up by the police officer of Ramgarh police station. The prosecution case introduced by the informant (PW 3) in her fardbeyan and reiterated by her in her evidence is as follows. The marriage of Rina Talpatra (deceased) was solemnized with Ashok Kumar Talpatra (A -1), resident of village Kaitha in the year 1981. Articles worth Rs. 40,000/ - was given to the girl by her mother at the time of the marriage, thereafter the girl went to her matrimonial house at village Kaitha. The informant alleges that soon after the marriage, her son -in -law (A -1) began demanding dowry and used to ill -treat the girl due to which, the girl used to be compelled to leave her husband's house and come to stay at the house of her mother at Dhanbad and later used to be taken back to her matrimonial house by her husband. In the year 1982, a daughter, namely Payal Talpatra (PW 5) was born to the deceased and two years later i.e. in the year 1984, a son namely, Vishal Talpatra (PW 6) was born to her. However, ill treatment and cruelty at the hands of her husband and in -laws continued unabated on account of non -fulfillment of his demand of Rs. 20,000/ - by way of dowry. Ultimately, on 18.3.1991, appellant No. 1 brought his wife (deceased) and his two children to the house of the informant at Dhanbad and left them at the house declaring that they would not be taken back until his demand of Rs. 20,000/ - is fulfilled. After about eight months, in the month of November 1991, appellant No. I came to the house of the informant (PW 3) and took away his wife (deceased) along with him leaving his children behind. On 7.12.1991 the informant received telegraphic message indicating that her son -in -law (A -1) met with an accident. She came from Dhanbad to Ramgarh where at Ramgarh Bus Stand she met her son -in -law (A -1) who was waiting for her. He asked her whether she had brought the amount of Rs. 20,000/ - with her, and on her denial, he asked her to return to her house at Dhanbad and not go to his village at Kaitha to meet her daughter. The informant returned to her house at Dhanbad. Two days later le on 9.12.1991, the informant received a. telegraphic message that her daughter Rina Talpatra had sustained burn injury and was admitted to plant hospital, Dhurwa with the district of Ranchi. On the same day, she came alone to the village Kaitha where her son -in -law's father Sudhir Kumar Talpatra told her about the burn injury sustained by the deceased and had also allegedly advised her to forget whatever has happened and not to Inform the police. He had allegedly threatened her also. Being thus intimidated, she remained silent. On the next day i.e. on 10.12.1991 in the early morning, she came to Hatia hospital where she saw her daughter Rina Talpatra lying with serious burn injuries. The informant adds that her daughter Rina Talpatra revealed to her that in the morning of 8.12.1991 her father -in -law Sudhir Kumar Talpatra, husband Ashok Kumar Talpatra, brother -in -laws Tapas Kumar Talpatra and Tarun Kumar Talpatra and mother -in -law Gauri Talpatra had pressed her down on the floor and after gagging her mouth, they set her on fire declaring that after her death, they would arrange second marriage for Ashok Kumar Talpatra (A -1) to fetch more dowry. The informant adds that Rina Talpatra had further told her that on 10.12.1991, her husband (A -1) had obtained her thumb impression two on blank papers. Further contention of the informant is that her son -in -law (A -1) and his two brothers (A -2) and (A -3) had told her to keep silent over the matter and threatened to kill her and her son if she opened her mouth. On account of the threatening, she remained silent, on 14.1.1992 the injured Rina Talpatra died at the hospital. On her death, appellants left the dead body at the hospital and fled away. After postmortem examination held on the dead body of her deceased daughter, the police handed over the dead body to her. She took the dead body to her house at Dhanbad where she performed the last rites. After completing the funeral, she came to Ramgarh and on being informed that no case was registered against any of the accused persons at the police station, she met the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh and on his instruction she went to Sadar police station, Hazaribagh where her fardbeyan was recorded and on the basis of which, the instant case was registered at Ramgarh police station. Appellants had denied the charges, pleading not guilty to the offences alleged. At the trial, prosecution had examined altogether nine witnesses including the informant, Rita Mukherjee (PW 3), her son Deobrat Mukherjee (PW 4), her elder son Bimal Mazumdar (PW 2), both children of the deceased namely, Payal Talpatra (PW 5) and Vishal Talpatra (PW 6), doctor (PW 9) who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, the police officer Shambhu Nath Singh Bir (PW 7) who had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant (PW 3) and the investigating officer Gauri Shankar Pathak (PW 8).
(3.) THE trial Court, on considering the evidences on record, had placed reliance on the testimonies of the informant (PW 3) and that of her son (PW 4) and finding support from the evidences of PW 2, PW 5 and PW 6, as well as the evidences of the doctor (PW 9), recorded its finding of guilt against all the accused persons. It needs to be mentioned here that though the case was initially registered also against Sudhir Talpatra, father -in -law of the deceased along with the appellants, but he could not be put on trial on account of his demise. It needs also to be mentioned here that subsequent to the filing of the present appeal, appellant No. 4 Gauri Talpatra had reportedly died on 13.10.2005 and consequently, the instant appeal against the appellant No. 4 stood abated.;