- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.5.1999 and 24.5.1999 respectively passed by learned Sessions Judge at Dhanbad in S.T. No. 9 of 1998 convicting the appellant under section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is as follows: -The fard beyan (Ext -3) was recorded at 11.30 A.M. on 22.8.1997 of Arjun Paswan ( the informant, P.W. 5 ) that he got information from Rampati Dusadh that his niece ( bhagni) Indu Devi was murdered by her in -laws whereupon he went to the place of her in -laws. He found his niece lying dead in the house. He enquired from Chandradeo Singh (co -accused) and father of the appellant about Indu Devi as to how she died on which he replied that her husband (the appellant) murdered her on that day at about 3 A.M. in the morning by throttling. It was further said that the informants brother -in -law Suresh Prasad (P.W. 4) had married his daughter Indu Devi with appellant in March 1995 according to Hindu rites. At the time of marriage cash and certain articles were given as gift and after some days of the marriage the in -laws of Indu Devi started demanding freeze and godrej almirah. It was further said that whenever the informants brother -in -law came to the sasural of Indu Devi he used to go to his place also to see him and he used to tell the informant that accused Chandradeo Singh was pressurizing for freeze and godrej almirah and her father -in -law and the appellant were torturing her for the same. It was alleged that for this reason Indu Devi was murdered by accused persons by throttling. On the basis of such fard beyan a formal FIR (Ext. -4) was drawn and a case under section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in this case. P.W. 1 Dr. Shailendra Kumar is the doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased (Indu Devi) He found following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased: - P.W. 1 further said that cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. Injury no. (ii) was caused by impression of thumb. Injury no. (i) and (iii) were caused by nails. Other injuries were caused by hard blunt force. P.W. 2 Pramod Paswan is the brother of the deceased. He inter alia said that the accused persons used to demand freeze and almirah and used to torture the deceased. P.W. 3 Bachia Devi is mother of the deceased. She has inter alia said that there was demand of freeze and almirah by the accused persons soon before the death of the deceased and the accused persons used to torture her for such demand. P.W. 4 Suresh Prasad is the father of the deceased he has supported the prosecution case in the same line. P.W. 5 Arjun Paswan is (i) abrasion 1 /4  x1/10  on the under surface of chin. (ii) Bruise 1/2 x1/4  on the upper part middle portion front of neck radish brown in colour (iii) Three abrasions cresentic shaped ¼ x1/10  each on the left side of front of neck one above the other. (iv) Bruise 1 x1/4  on the front of left shoulder. (v) Bruise 1 x3/4  on the inner aspect of the margin of right palm. the informant. He has said inter alia that when he reached at the place of occurrence he found that few neighbours and a few police personnel were present there. Thereafter he went to inform his brother -in -law Suresh Prasad (P.W. 4). P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer. He has said inter alia that he recorded the information received in the police station diary in the station diary but the number of such station diary has not been mentioned in the case diary. He has further said that the inquest report was prepared prior to recording of fard beyan. P.W.7 Narain Prasad Singh is A.S.I. He said that he was posted at the out post as in charge, where an information was received about the alleged murder of the daughter in law of Chandradeo Singh. He further said that he recorded such information as Sanha. He further said that he did not remember whether on his beyan any FIR was recorded or not.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not brought on record, the first information received by the police. He further submitted that the inquest report was prepared at 6.30.A.M. i.e. much prior to the recording of the FIR. He further submitted that though FIR was recorded on 22.8.1997 but it was sent to the CJM on 25.8.1997 and there is no explanation for such delay. Therefore the whole prosecution case becomes doubtful.;