Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1446 (PAT)

Tengari Ram v. State of Bihar

2013-12-12

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.- It has been submitted on behalf of appellant No.1 that he died during the pendency of appeal hence his appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. 2. An the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201/34, IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years, two years and one year respectively by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in S.Tr. No. 97 of 1995 by judgment and order dated 29.9.2001. 3. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant, Lalan Ram is that his daughter, Kiran Devi was married to Tengali Ram the appellant No. 1 about five years back on which occasion he had given dowry to the bridegroom party as per his capacity. When he went to meet his daughter the in-laws demanded bullock and chided his daughter for non-fulfilment of the same as also tortured her in various ways. Later on he learnt that his daughter had been strangulated and was cremated. Her half burnt dead body was recovered by the Police from the burning ghat. 3-A. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW 1, Lallan Ram is the Informant. PW 2, Lawangi Devi is the mother of the deceased but tendered. PW 3, Pachan Ram. PW 4. Mandeep Ram are material witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. PW 5. Raja Ram, PW 6 Ram Lagan Ram and PW 7. Dharikshan Ram had not supported the case of the prosecution and hence declared hostile. PW 8, Udai Pratap Singh is the Investigating Officer whereas PW 9. Ram Charitra Pd. is another Police Officer who did part investigation. 4. The defence on its behalf examined three witnesses to prove that the death had occurred due to falling down from the stairs and the marriage had not taken place within seven years. 5. PW 1, Lallan Ram stated that his daughter had been married to the appellant No.1 about five years back on which occasion large number of gifts were given to her in-laws. However. she used to be tortured for a bullock and later on she was done to death. He went to the cremation ghat where he found her half burnt body and thus instituted the present case. He stated in his cross-examination that his daughter had remained in the matrimonial home for about a year. However. she used to be tortured for a bullock and later on she was done to death. He went to the cremation ghat where he found her half burnt body and thus instituted the present case. He stated in his cross-examination that his daughter had remained in the matrimonial home for about a year. After her "gauna" he had gone three days later to see her and that he was informed that the appellants had assaulted her for non-fulfilment of dowry. He had gone to her in-laws house about eight times. 6. PW 3, Pachan Ram is a relative of the Informant and he merely stated the allegation with regard to demand of bullock by the in-laws. 7. PW 4, Mandeep Ram is also a relative of the Informant who stated about the factum of marriage and the demand of dowry as also tortured on non-fulfillment of the same. 8. PW 8, Udai Pratap Singh is the Investigating Officer stated that on 17.12.1993 he received an information with regard to the incident upon which he instituted the present case and proceeded towards the place of occurrence. He found that the dead body of the deceased was being cremated in an open filed. 9. PW 9, Dr. Ram Charitra Pd. stated that the appellant No. 1 has been treated for mental illness. 10. DW 1, Suraj Ram stated that he was informed by the appellants and testified that the deceased had died on account of falling down from the stairs. 11. DW 2, Wakil Mahto also supported the same version. 12. DW 3, Harhangi Ram stated that he went to the house of the deceased and found her in a hopeless condition. The appellant No. 1 then told him that he should go and inform the matrimonial relation of the deceased at which he went there and brought the father of the deceased with him in whose presence the last rites were performed. 13. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that there is no doubt that all of them have stated that the in-laws used to demand dowry from the deceased. However, there is no reason to discredit the defence witnesses. The evidence of DW 3 is noteworthy since he had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased and also informed her father upon which he came and the last rites were performed in his presence. However, there is no reason to discredit the defence witnesses. The evidence of DW 3 is noteworthy since he had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased and also informed her father upon which he came and the last rites were performed in his presence. This appears to be in conformity even to the prosecution-case when the Informant states that he reached the burning ghat and found his daughter being cremated. The fact that the appellants were not arrested even though the Police arrived soon thereafter also goes to show that initially there was hesitation as to whether the present case should be instituted. 14. Hence giving benefit of doubt to the appellants, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 29.9.2001 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in S.Tr. No. 97 of 1995 is set aside. The appellants arc discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.