D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE appellants were convicted by the 3rd Additional Session Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 378 of 1990 for the offence under Sec. 498A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. Appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 304B of the IPC beside Sec. 498A of the IPC and put on trial. However, the trial court finding tin evidence deficient in respect of the offence under Sec. 304B of the IPC, acquitted both the appellants for the said offence, but proceeded to convict the appellants for other remaining offences. In course of trial, the trial court framed fresh charges against the appellants for the offence under Sections 306/34 of the IPC read with Sec. 494 of the IPC, but in absence of adequate evidence in support o the two additional charges appellants were acquitted from the said offence.
(2.) THE case against the appellants and other co -accused persons was instituted on the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant Jairam Mahto (PW6) alleging therein that his daughter Neelam Kumari (deceased) was married to the .appellant No. 2 Sunil Kumar Singh on 10.6.1987. For a few months after the marriage, couple led their life happily at the house of the appellants, thereafter, the girl suffered ill -treatment, cruelty, neglect and torture at the hands of her husband and in -laws besides other members of the family on account of non -fulfillment of the (sic) for a T.V. Set and a refrigerator. The accused persons had allegedly issued threats to the informant that if their demands were not met, they will proceed to solemnize second marriage of the appellant No. 2 Sunil Kumar Singh with another girl. The accused husband carried out his threats by marrying another girl namely Saroj Kumari sometimes in December 1989, where -after ill -treatment of the deceased intensified, about which the deceased had informed her father namely, the informant and her sister through letters and unable to bear the torture, she ended her life by committing suicide on 27 5.1990 at he matrimonial house. As many as nine witnesses were examined y the prosecution at the trial and the list includes the informant (PW7), sister (PW4) of he deceased, brother (PW2) and brother -in -laws (PWs 3 and 5). Besides oral evidence, prosecution has also adduced few letters (Ext. -4 and 4/3) purportedly written by the deceased to her father and to he sister Malti Kumari and also carbon copy of the letter addressed by the deceased to the police (Ext. -6). The appellants in their defence had also adduced evidences including the doctor (DW3).
(3.) THE specific case of the appellants in their defence was that the decease was suffering from mental depression and schizophrenia for which she was provider with medical treatment arid this fact has been confirmed by the attending doctor Dr. A.K Gupta (PW3).;