PRADEEP KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 2.1.2002 and order of sentence dated 8.1.2002 passed by Sri Hari Shankar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1999, by which judgment he found all the appellants guilty under Sections 304 -B, 498 -A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 304 - B, R.I. for 2 years under Section 498A and R.I. for one year under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) ON repeated call, nobody appeared, on behalf of the appellants then on the request of the Court Mr. Bibhas Sinha, Advocate argued on behalf of the appellants as amicus curie. He submitted that it will appear from the evidence of the witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 2, 7, 8 and 9 that the only allegation of demand of dowry and torture is against the husband -appellant No. 1, Suresh Sao while there is no evidence against the other appellants i.e. old mother -in -law (appellant No. 2) and father -in -law (appellant No. 3) that they ever demanded any dowry or tortured the victim girl and as such the conviction of the said appellant Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 304 -B, 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law -and fit to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that most of the independent witnesses have turned hostile and the prosecution case has been supported only by the informant, PW 9, mother of the deceased except that all witnesses have turned hostile and hence the Court should not have relied on their evidences since they are interested witnesses, should have acquitted the appellants. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants soon after the marriage started demanding dowry and since the parents of the victim girl was not in a position to fulfill the said demand the appellants continued torture, till soon before the death of the victim girl and as such all ingredient of Sections 304 -B, IPC has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants and they have rightly been convicted.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties and going through the evidence, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a First Information Report given by the informant, Ramani Devi to the Officer -incharge, Dhanwar Police Station stating therein that her daughter, Kanchan Kumari was married with appellant No. 1 -Suresh Sao, son of Sri Bodhi Sao in the year 1997. At the time of marriage she had given 50,000/ - in cash and other articles and ornaments. After sometime of the marriage the father -in -law of the deceased , Bodhi Sao son of Late Kunjo Sao and her mother -in - law, Gouri Devi started demanding a motorcycle and a T.V. from her daughter when informant came to know about this then she along with village panches, went to the sasural of her daughter, where Sukhdeo Sao (master) and Gurucharan Sao (Master) asked them that unless and until a motorcycle and a T.V. are given they will not accept her daughter. They also threatened that her daughter will be killed. The informant could not fulfill the said demand due to poverty. When the daughter of informant went to her sasural, then after 3 -4 days, the informant went to the sasural, where she learnt that since she has not given a motorcycle and a T.V. to her son -in -law, her daughter has been killed by the accused persons along with two masters, namely, Sukhdeo Sao and Gurucharan Sao and her dead body has been thrown into a well.;