Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1392 (JHR)

Nand Kishore Yadav v. State of Bihar

2003-12-18

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Hari Shankar Prasad, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.8.1999 and order of sentence dated 25.8.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 360 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh held the appellant guilty under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that Meena Devi, daughter of the informant, was married with Nand Kishore Yadav, son of Rupial Gope of village Lodhma on 17.5.1994 and after marriage, his daughter always visited Naihar and on the occasion of Holi festival she had come to naihar and said that her father-in-law, husband and nanad are demanding scooter and have asked her to come with scooter and if she comes without scooter, something untoward will happen with her. Meanwhile, husband of Meena Devi came for Vidagari and informant who is father of the deceased Meena Devi, persuaded him and made vidagari of his daughter on 20.3.1995. On 21.3.1995 Rupial Gope and Gunjlal Gope of village Lodhma came to the residence of the informant at about 7.00 PM and informed him that his daughter had committed •suicide by hanging herself. They also requested him to come to the place and settle the matter, but don't inform the police. On this piece of information, the informant along with Mathura Yadav, Bodhan Yadav, and Bhola Yadav of his village went to Lodhma village and reached there at 12.00 at night and saw that his daughter is lying dead on a broken khat and there were scratches on her neck. He inquired from samdhi and son-in-law and persons of the village about the death of his daughter, then they disclosed that soon after she arrived from her naihar she committed suicide by hanging herself. He further inquired that when she died in the night, then why dead body has been kept concealed, on this they did not give satisfactory reply and they threatened him not to inform the police. Thereafter he inquired from nearby people about the death of his daughter, then he came to know that after arrival of his daughter from her naihar, all the accused persons abused her and by pressing her neck, they committed her murder and that is why, they have kept concealed dead body in the house. Thereafter he inquired from nearby people about the death of his daughter, then he came to know that after arrival of his daughter from her naihar, all the accused persons abused her and by pressing her neck, they committed her murder and that is why, they have kept concealed dead body in the house. On this written complaint before officer-in-charge, Ramgarh PS, Hazaribagh, a case bearing Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 60 of 1995 under Sections 304 (B)/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and police after investigation submitted charge sheet. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh after recording the evidence of witnesses-both oral and documentary-held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 3. Prosecution has examined seven witnesses. PW7 did not appear in her cross-examination and, therefore, her evidence was expunged. PW1 is Mogal Yadav, PW2 is Bodhan Yadav. PW3 is Ram Prasad Yadav. PW4 is Dasarath Yadav, who is informant of the case as well as father of the deceased Meena Devi. PW5 is the doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Meena Devi. PW6 is Bhola Yadav and PW7 is Etwaria Devi. As she did not present herself for cross-examination, her evidence was expunged. 4. On behalf of defence, two witnesses have been examined. 5. PW5 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Meena Devi and found the following ante mortem injuries on her body. (i) Abrasion 1" x 1/4 " two in number below left side of chin. (ii) Bruise 2 x 1/4 " front and left side of neck. (iii) On general examination rigor mortis was found in the lower limbs but absent from the upper limbs. (iv) Blood was coming out from nostrils and mouth. (v) On internal examination hyoid bone found fractured. Tracheal wall was found congested. Both lungs were intact but congested. Heart-Right chamber contained blood clots but left chamber was empty Liver was intact but congested. Stomach wall was normal contains about 4 ounce of mucus fluid. According to the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of throttling and time elapsed since death was about 36 hours. 6. PW4 is Dasarath Yadav. He is informant of the case. Stomach wall was normal contains about 4 ounce of mucus fluid. According to the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of throttling and time elapsed since death was about 36 hours. 6. PW4 is Dasarath Yadav. He is informant of the case. He has come to say that his daughter died in the year 1995 on 21.3.1995. According to him, his daughter Meena Devi was married with Nand Kishore Yadav on 17.5.1994 and after marriage she went to her sasural but she frequently visited her naihar. According to this witness, last time she came to naihar in 1995 on the occasion of Holi and on 20.3.1995, his son-in-law came and she was sent with her husband. On 21.3.1995 at about 7.00 PM Rupial Gope and Gunjlal Gope came to him and informed that his daughter has died due to hanging. He went with Mathura Yadav, Bodhan Yadav and Bhola Yadav and reached sasural of his daughter at 12 A' clock in the night and saw that his daughter was lying dead on a broken khat. He saw scratches around the neck of his daughter. According to this witness, whenever his daughter visited naihar she always complained that her sasural people are demanding scooter and on failure to fulfil the demand, she will be murdered. 7. PWs 1, 2 and 6 have supported the version of PW4, who is informant of the case, and heave stated that Meena Devi (deceased) was married with Nand Kishore Yadav on 17.5.1994 and whenever she visited her naihar, she always complained about demand of scooter and threatening extended to her that in case of failure she will meet dire consequences and they had gone to the sasural of Meena Devi on getting information of her alleged death. On the other hand, doctor (PW5) has supported the cause of death of Meena Devi as a result of Asphyxia due to throttling. Although, defence witnesses have stated that whenever Meena Devi was asked to serve her mother-in-law who was bed-ridden, she did not look after her mother-in-law and always used to flee to her naihar and when pressure was put on her to look after her mother-in-law, she committed suicide. 8. On this piece of evidence, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 9. 8. On this piece of evidence, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that I.O. has not been examined in this case and, therefore, prejudice has been caused to the defence. Further plea was that in this case, all the witnesses are interested ones as they be long to one village and not a single independent witness has been examined and further that evidence of defence witnesses have not been taken into consideration and also that, appellant is lying in custody from the date of his arrest and he has now been released after serving out sentence. 10. On perusal of evidence and materials brought on record, it appears that witnesses have specifically stated that scooter was demanded and due to non-fulfillment of demand of scooter she was done to death by throttling and the medical report corroborates the evidence of witnesses that she was throttled to death. Further, prosecution has been able to prove that the marriage was solemnized within seven years of her death and she died as a result of throttling, which is unnatural cause of death and further that, there was demand of dowry by the appellant. Since learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that he has been released from custody as he was in custody since 23.3.1995 and after remission he has been released. 11. In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the period of sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.