RAJA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment of conviction dated 24th February 2003 and the order of sentence dated 26th February 2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1993/90 of 2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Gopalganj whereby each of the five appellants has been convicted under Section 304(B), 498(A) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and respectively sentenced to R.I. for 10 years, R.I. for 3 years, R.I. for 2 years and R.I. for 2 years.

(2.) THE fard-beyan (Ext-2) of the case was recorded by ASI R.K. Singh on the statement of the informant Ramadhar Tiwary, the father of the deceased Durgawati Devi at Gopalganj Police Station on 17th September 1989 at 9:00 A.M. THE informant stated that about 4 years ago he had married his eldest daughter Dutrgawati (deceased) to Prakash Mishra (appellant) son of Raja Mishra (appellant) and at the time of Tilak ceremony he (informant) had given cash of Rs. 5,000/- utensil set, watch, radio etc. but when Barat had arrived at the time of marriage, the father (Raja Mishra) had demanded Motor-cycle but on his (informant's) request marriage was performed and they took Durgawati to their house. She (deceased) remained in her Sasural for about one year. During this period, on intervals, he (informant) used to go to deceased's Sasural to meet her and whenever he met her she complained that the appellants used to beat her and abuse her saying that she would be finished, if the demand of Motor-cycle was not fulfilled. He (informant) further stated that he persuaded his daughter for keeping patience and he also persuaded Raja Mishra (appellant.) not to torture and harass her (deceased) and that he (informant) was a poor man and he was not in a position to fulfil the demand. At this, all the appellants engaged into a quarrelsome talk with him and they asked to take his daughter with him, if he was unable to fulfil the demnad. He (informant) further stated that since his daughter was terrified he brought her with him to her Maika. She lived there for about a year. About six months back his son-in-law Prakash Mishra (appellant) came to his (informant's) house and requested him (informant) to send her (deceased) saying that he (Prakash) will ask his parents not to torture and harass her (deceased). Believing his (Prakash Mishra's) words he (informant) sent his daughter (deceased) with him (Prakash Mishra) to her Sasural. He (informant) further alleged that about 20 days ago Prakash Mishra and Raja Mishra (appellants) came to him and they asked to fulfil the demand of Motor-cycle or to give Rs. 17,000/- in lieu of it and they also threatened that he (informant) will not be able to see his daughter (deceased) again, if the demand was not fulfilled. He (informat) requested them (Prakash Mishra and Raja Mishra) that he was a poor man and he had to marry one another daughter, hence, he had no capacity to fulfil the demand, whereupon they threatened him again. He (informant) further stated that on the last Friday when he went to meet his daughter (deceased) he found Prakash Mishra and Raju Mishra (appellants) and while he was asking about the welfare of his daughter (deceased) all the appellants assembled there and they fell upon to assault him asking to flee away, else he (informant) would be killed. THEn he (informant) left appellants' house in order to save his life and had learnt from Bihari Mishra and other neighbours there that due to non-fulfilment of the demand of motor-cycle the appellants killed the deceased in the night of 13th September 1989 and they disappeared the dead-body. THE informant alleged that due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, the appellants killed his daughter and disappeared the dead-body. On the basis of the fard-beyan FIR (Ext-1) was lodged and the investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants who were put on trial wherein they have been convicted and sentenced, as above.

(3.) FIRSTLY, I take up the evidence of the informant (P.W.4). He deposed that he had married his daughter (deceased) to Prakash Mishra (appellant) son of Raja Mishra (appellant) about four years before the occurrence and he had given cash of Rs. 5,000/- along with watch, radio, utensils and clothes in Tilak ceremony. He further deposed that at the time of marriage, when Barat had come to his house, Raja Mishra made a demand of Motor-cycle or Rs. 17,000/- in lieu of it. He (informant) requested that he had to marry one another daughter and he had to bear the cost of education of his sons, hence, he was not in a position to fulfil the demand. On his request, the marriage was performed and his daughter (deceased) went to her Sasural. He continued to depose that after marriage he used to go to his daughter and met her at intervals and that whenever he (informant) met his daughter (deceased) complained him that her Sasural people, namely, the appellants used to beat her asking for fulfilment of demand of Motor-cycle or payment of Rs. 17,000/- in lieu of it and they also used to threaten her for non-fulfilment of the demand. The informant further deposed that two years before the occurrence, appellant Brij Bihari Mishra had asked him to take his daughter to his (informant's) house and that thereafter he had brought his daughter from her Sasural to his house and she had remained there for one year and during this period a female child was also born to her. He continued to depose that thereafter, his son-in-law Prakash Mishra (appellant) came to his house and asked him to send his daughter (deceased) to her Sasural saying that he (Prakash Mishra) had persuaded his parents not to harass her (deceased). On Prakash Mishra stating like this, he (informant) sent his daughter to her Sasural. The informant continued to depose that about 8-9 months after this, appellant Raja Mishra and Prakash Mishra came to his (informant's) house and asked for giving a Motor-cycle or Rs. 17,000/- in lieu of it and they also threatened that he (informant) will not be able to see his daughter again in case the demand was not fulfilled. He (informat) expressed his inability in fulfilling the demand whereupon they returned back repeating the threat that he (informant) will not be able to see his daughter again. The informant further deposed that, thereafter, one day when he went to his daughter's Sasural and met his Samdhi (Rajaram Mishra) and paid respect to him, all the appellants started abusing him and they also fell upon to assault him and that Raja Mishra had also given him a Lathi blow and that, thereafter, he left that place and went to their neighbour Bihari Mishra who disclosed to him that the appellants had killed and disappeared the dead body of his daughter.