Dhaneshwar Singh vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellant has been convicted u/s 304B IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Buxar in S.Tr. No. 245 of 1985 by judgment and order dated 04.08.2001. The submission of the Appellant is that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 08.09.1993 and hence his conviction in 2001 for an offence which came into existence for legislation subsequently on 26.11.1996 which is not in accordance with law.

I am inclined to accept the said submission. However, in the interest of justice I would examine the prosecution case to ascertain as to whether any offence is made out against the Appellant.

The case of Bir Bahadur Singh is that the marriage of his sister had been performed on 05.06.1983 with the present Appellant. After the marriage, Appellant had demanded a motor-cycle which the father of the victim compromised to fulfil in future. After the ''gauna'' was performed she informed that the accused persons were constantly making demands and torturing her for non-fulfilment of the same. On 09.09.1983 he received an information that his sister died in the evening upon which he reached the village and then he was informed that his sister had been poisoned to death and the accused persons had also disposed off the dead body.

The prosecution in all examined four witnesses. P.W. 3, Mukteshwar Singh and P.W. 4, Sudarshan Singh did not support the case of the prosecution.

P.W. 1, Bir Bahadur Singh repeated the factum of marriage of his sister with the Appellant for demands of dowry and also torture for non-fulfilment of the same. He further stated that on 09.09.1983 the brother-in-law of his sister had informed with regard to death of his sister upon which they reached her village at 7 P.M. They received information from the co-villagers that poison had been mixed in the sugar water on account of which she died on the same day. The dead body was disposed off by the accused persons did not give any satisfactory for the death and hence the present case was instituted.

P.W. 2, Deonath Singh is the father of the victim who supports the version of his son.

Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 the actual position is that they had learnt from the co-villagers that the deceased had been poisoned by her in-laws. However, none of the co-villagers has supported this fact and hence the evidence of these two witnesses is inadmissible. If this part of evidence is excluded evidently apart from speculation that the deceased had been killed by her in-laws there is no further material against the Appellant. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant on 04.08.2001 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-Buxar in S.Tr. No. 245 of 1985 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bonds.