AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises against the judgment dated 23/03/1998 passed by the 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 63/1991 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner convicted the appellants under Sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 3 years and 2 years respectively for the offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They were further convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the same judgment the learned trial Court acquitted the other two accused namely, Sushila Devi and Meena Kumari from all the charges.
(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that the informant Rabindra Sharma (PW -3) was residing at Devi Mandap Road, Hesal. He lodged an F.I.R. on 14/10/1990 stating therein that about eight months back he was residing in the house of Jainandan Prasad (appellant No. 1) as tenant and the son of the landlord namely, Prakash Kumar (appellant No. 2) enticed away his daughter on 15/02/1990 and in commission of the said offence the landlord, his wife and daughter had also their hands. The informant requested his landlord and other family members to return his daughter but they started demanding Rs. 60.000/ -, one colour T.V. and one V.C.R. and told him that if the demand is met then they would marry his son with the daughter of the informant. The informant objected to such demand and then the accused persons threatened him for dire consequence. Thereafter, the informant filed a complaint case of kidnapping of his daughter against the accused persons in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and thereafter, vacated the tenanted house of Jainandan Prasad. The informant after lodging the case requested the Court for production of his daughter in Court. His daughter was produced in the Court wherein she gave her statement that she was already married to Prakash Kumar, the son of the accused Jainandan Prasad and that she was not kidnapped by anyone and she wanted to live with her husband. On such statement, made by the daughter of the informant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate handed over the girl to the accused persons, i.e. the appellants herein. After the marriage the accused persons continued to demand dowry from the informant and the daughter of the informant namely Poonam Kumari also sent message to him requesting him to fulfill the demand of the accused persons otherwise her life would be in danger. The informant alleged that since he had no money and hence, he could not meet the said demand. He further alleged that after five months of the marriage, his daughter was burnt to death on 13/10/1990 by her in -laws, i.e. Prakash Kumar the husband, Vikash Kumar the brother -in -law and Jainandan Prasad and his wife, i.e. the father -in -law and the mother -in -law of his daughter. In order to establish the charges, altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW -1 is Dr. A.K. Choudhary, who conducted the Post Mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW -2 Kedar Nath was declared hostile. PW -3 is the informant himself and PW -4 Rajeev Kumar is his son. PW -5 is another son of the informant but his evidence was expunged since he was not produced for cross -examination. PW -6 is Ashok Kumar Ambastha the next door neighbour of the deceased and PW -7 is the Investigating Officer.
(3.) THE informant PW -3 has stated in his evidence that he had snapped all his ties with his daughter after she got married with appellant No. 2 Prakash Kumar against his will. He further admitted that it was an inter -caste marriage and his daughter was aged about 20 -21 years when she eloped with the appellant No. 2. He further stated in his evidence that after his daughter married with appellant No. 2, neither he nor his wife ever went to see her nor his daughter ever wrote any letter or sent any person to him. It is important to note that PW -3 in his evidence admitted that the demand of T.V. etc. was made by the appellant No. 1 personally on 18/02/1990, thereafter through some other persons. He again sent message for the said demand on 24/06/1990. From the evidence of PW -3 it appears that since his daughter had eloped with the appellant No. 2 Prakash Kumar and, thereafter, married with him and, therefore, the informant was not happy with the said inter -caste marriage and he snapped all his ties with his daughter and was not in visiting term with her at all after she left his house. It further appears from his evidence that the informant had earlier lodged a case against the appellant for kidnapping of his daughter but the said case failed in view of the fact that his daughter herself gave statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in Court that she was not actually kidnapped by the accused persons, rather she went with appellant No. 2 as she was having love affair with him and, thereafter, she out of her own sweet will got married with him. She also refused to go with her father, i.e. the informant and expressed her desire to live with her husband, i.e. appellant No. 2. In this situation it cannot be ruled out that the informant was having personal grudge against these appellants.;