AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE two appellants along with seven other accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 304B/34 and 201/34 IPC for causing intentional death of Sarita Devi within seven years of her marriage due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and in furtherance of common intention and for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder by throwing the dead body into a well with an intention to screen themselves from legal punishment.
(2.) LEARNED Session Judge, Deoghar by the impugned judgment dated 24 -9 -96 in Session Case No. 173 of 1992 convicted only these two appellants for the offence under Section 304B and 201 IPC and both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence under Section 304B and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The rest of the accused persons were acquitted from all charges. In short the prosecution case as alleged in the fardbeyan of the informant Hriday Narayan Mahto is that his sister Sarita Devi was married to the appellant No. 1. Damodar Verma one year ago. After the marriage the appellants and other in -laws started torturing her sister in connection with demand of dowry and they always forced her to bring money from her father and brother. They also threatened that if their demand was not fulfilled then she would be killed. The informant further alleged that on 26 -5 -91 Narayan I.e. the brother of the informant went to the in -laws place of his sister to bring her but she was not sent by the in -laws rather they started making demand for money. On 28 -5 -91 the informant himself went to the in -laws place of her sister to bring her sister and at that time he saw that his sister was being assaulted by the accused persons and even in his presence the mother -in -law (Appellant No. 2) assaulted his sister. The informant requested not the assault and promised to pay the dowry according to his capacity. He further alleged that on 29 -5 -91 he heard a rumour that his sister was traceless from her Sasural, then he along with other members of his family went to the in -laws place of his sister i.e. village Paharia and he found his sister missing. On interrogation, the mother -in -law i.e. appellant No. 2 disclosed that the dead body of his sister was lying in irrigation well near Ajay river. On this information they went to that place and found that the dead body of his sister was floating in the well, then he reported the matter to the police and thereafter the police took out the dead body from the well, and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was sent for Post -Mortem examination. 3. In order to establish the charges, in all ten witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution out of whom P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 are the formal witness and P.W. 10 is the Doctor who held post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 1 is Hriday Narayan Mahto, the brother of the informant and P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the witness who accompanied the informant to village Paharia on hearing the news of disappearance of the deceased. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are the witness on the point of ill treatment and demand of dowry by the accused persons. P.W. 6 is the father of the informant whereas P.W. 8 is the informant himself.
(3.) ACCORDING to the Doctor P.W. 10 the following ante -mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased. 1. Bruise over left mid -axilliary Line - 3 1/2" x 2" with fracture of 5th left rib with abrasion - 2 " x 1/2" below the bruise. 2. Abrasion - abdominal wall -6" x 1/4". 3. Abrasion -Sternum to abdominal wall - 18 " x 1/2". 4. Diffuse swelling - Right side of fact with Burise - 1/4" x 1/2". 5. Bruise - Left forearm - 3" x 1/2". 6. Bruise -forehead - above left eyebrow - 2" x 1 1/2". 7. Bruise -forehead -above right eyebrow - 1 1/2 " x 1". 8. Bruise - left side of neck - like ligature mark 6" x 1/4". 9. Blood -coming out from the nostrils. In the opinion of the Doctor death was due to the shock and haemorrage as a result of the above injuries specially injury No. 1 which was caused by hard and blunt substance. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in the preceding paragraph. 5. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned trial court held as under: (a) The medical version was clear and specific on the pint that the victim was subjected to merciless assault, as a result of which she died and thereafter her dead body was thrown into the well. (b) The marriage of the deceased was performed with the appellant No. 1 Damodar three years, therefore, the death of the deceased took place within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstance. (c) From the evidence of P.Ws 2, 3 and 4 it was established that the victim lady was being ill treated and soon before her death she was subjected to various types of torture due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. ;