Raj Kumari Devi and Others vs The State of Bihar

Mandhata Singh, J.—Appellant no. 1 is dead. It is verified, found true and the same is accepted. So, the appeal on his behalf is abated. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants, except appellant no. 1 and learned counsel for the State.

Prosecution case initiated on written application of Kashi Nath Singh (P.W.3), in brief, is that informant''s niece Hira Devi was married with Rakesh Kumar Singh on 23.05.1990. After four months of the marriage, she was brought by the informant his home and she informed that mother-in-law, her husband and her brother-in-law were subjecting her to cruelty for demand of a motorcycle in dowry, for its non-fulfillment accused-appellants cut her hair. After one and half year, she was taken back by Rakesh Kumar Singh (Appellant no. 5) at her sasural, deceased''s mother-in-law (appellant no. 1) instigated her to commit suicide by jumping in a well or on the railway line. After 6-7 months again she came to the house of one, Bishwanath Singh in the same village. On her request Bishwanath Singh brought the deceased to the house of the informant. In the same night, all the story was narrated by her about causing of cruelty upon her at accused-appellants'' hand. Further, it is said that brother-in-law namely, Dilip Singh again took the deceased to matrimonial home on assurance that no cruelty would be caused any more.

On 26.05.1994, informant went to matrimonial home of the deceased. He was not allowed for four hours to meet the deceased. Anyhow he met his niece and found her lean and thin due to cruelty caused upon her for the demand of dowry. On 06.06.1994 at about 1.30 pm., one Atma Narayan Singh came to informant and informed about killing of his niece by mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law. Informant rushed there in the next morning at 7.00 am. and did not find any member of the family there rather house was found closed (locked) and nearby people gathered and informed about administering of poison in food of the deceased at accused-appellants'' hand and cremation of the dead body.

In the case charge framed for the offence u/s 304B of the I.P.C. but trial is ended in the conviction and sentence u/s 498A of the I.P.C.

In all, six witnesses are examined in the case and they are P.W.1 Atma Singh, P.W.2 Bishwanath Singh, P.W.3 Kashi Nath Singh, P.W.4 Dr. Manohar Thakur, P.W.5 Rupjhari Devi and P.W.6 Bidhan Chandra Lal, one of the investigating officers of the case who has submitted charge-sheet in the case.

P.W.4 is Doctor who has conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws. 1 and 2 state to know nothing as to how Hira Devi was killed and both have been declared hostile but of no avail for any of the parties as in cross-examination also they state nothing in favour of any of the parties. P.W.3, informant of the case and P.W.5 mother of the deceased are there to state the demand, torture, cruelty or harassment to the deceased for demand of dowry or any kind of demand. On this point both the witnesses are constant. Their statement on the point of demand of motorcycle is added by a demand of tractor also which has been disbelieved by the trial Court finding the same exaggeration.

Torture or cruelty or harassment in form of assault or any other form is doubted on behalf of accused-appellant that for several times she came to her maika either was driven by in-laws or forced but for all the time she was taken back either by the husband or any of the family members of in-laws.

On this point, P.W.3 states that after 3-4 months of the marriage, deceased was taken to her Maika by the informant from one Bharat Singh that time husband took back his wife. Further, for two times she was taken by him. Again she came to her maika at that time dewar, Dilip Singh took her back. For the last time, she was taken back a year earlier to the incident and allegation is that she was killed. P.W.5 in her statement states that after remaining for two years of the deceased to her house, she was taken away by her dewar and husband. Though the witnesses are constant on the point that for all time, she was assaulted but for all the time whenever she was taken back at the time of Vidai neither there was any complaint at informant family''s hand nor any demand at accused-appellants'' hand is alleged or stated in the case. If same would have been for demand of dowry or any demand, no question was arising that she (deceased) would have been taken back by the husband or other in-laws. Court is not to consider the assault, if any, was caused at accused-appellants'' hand for constituting any offence other than for the offence u/s 498A of the I.P.C. nor is to consider the killing of the deceased for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. which has not been considered by the Trial Court. So, the conclusion of conviction and sentence u/s 498A I.P.C. also is not liable to sustain.

On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1846 of 1994/129 of 1994 is set aside, accused-appellants are acquitted of their respective charges, discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and set at liberty. Office is directed to send the records along with a copy of this Judgment to the trial Court.