Ram Prit Yadav and Others vs State of Bihar

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.1.1997 and 29.1.1997 respectively passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 317/96 convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and to undergo R.I. for three years u/s 201, IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

The case of prosecution as stated in the fardbeyan of informant Mangal Yadav (PW 2) is that his sister Parbati Devi was married to appellant Ram Prit Yadav 5 1/ 2 years ago and her ''Gauna'' had taken place about 2 1/2 years ago and thereafter, all the appellants started making demand of a buffalo as dowry and on non-fulfillment of their demand they started assaulting Parbati Devi and stopped providing her food. Parbati Devi always used to complain to informant about the torture at the hands of appellants. Thereafter once informant came to know that because of non-fulfillment of demand of appellants for buffalo they had assaulted his sister and had broken her hand and she was not in a position to walk. On this information the informant sent his brother Shambhu Yadav (PW 4) on 13.2.1996 to the house of appellants for. bringing his sister. Parbati Devi told Shambhu Yadav about the assault orj her by the appellants and also about the torture on her and Shambhu Yadav wanted to bring her with him but appellants Munishi Yadav and Shivanti Devi, in laws of Parbati Devi, did not allow her to go with him saying that after 3-4 days she would be sent to his house. On 15.2.1996 appellant Munshi Yadav come to the house of informant and informed that Parbati Devi had become traceless. The informant along with Moti Lal Choudhary (PW 1) and Raghunath Yadav (not examined) went to the village of appellants where he did not find Parbati Devi in the house of appellants and he further found that although clothes and other articles of Parbati Devi were kept in her room but that room was freshly coated with a layer of soil and he did not find her bed in the room. The informant made hectic search of his sister but he did not get any clue. He also came to know from the neighbours of appellants that appellants used to assault his sister on account of their demand for buffalo as dowry. In his written report the informant levelled allegation against the appellants that they had committed the murder of his sister and got her dead-body disappeared in order to escape the legal punishment for offence of murder.

On the basis of written report of informant a case under Sections 304-B/201/34, IPC against all the four appellants was lodged by drawing a formal FIR (Ext. 1). After investigation police submitted charge-sheet" in the aforesaid section against all the four appellants who were put on trial and after trial they were found guilty under Sections 304B/201/34, IPC and they have been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. The defence of the appellants as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the evidence of witnesses examined on their behalf was that Parbati Devi voluntarily left their house and fled away.

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Mangal Yadav (PW2) is information. Shambhu Yadav (PW4) is brother of Parbati Devi and Janki Devi (PW 5) is mother of Parbati Devi. Moti Lal Choudhary (PW 1) has not supported the case of prosecution and he has been declared hostile. Jhun Jhun Yadav (PW 3) is a formal witness who has simply stated that about 5 1/2 months ago appellant Munshi Yadav had told him that his daughter-in-law had fled away and besides this, he has not said anything. Gopal Prasad (PW 6) has only proved formal FIR (Ext. 1), case diary (Ext. 2) and brief of case diary (Ext. 3).

Mangal Yadav (PW 2), the informant, in his evidence has stated that his sister Parbati Devi was married to appellant Ram Prit Yadav 5 1/2 years ago and her ''Vidagari'' had taken place about 2 1/2 years ago and thereafter, she remained at her ''Sasural'' and she always used to send him news that for the demand of a buffalo as dowry her husband and other appellants who are her in-laws and brother-in-law used to quarrel with her and on receiving this news he had gone to the ''Sasurai'' of Parbati Devi were he found that arm of his sister was broken and he thereafter told the appellants to allow her sister to go with him on which the appellants told that she would go to her house about 2-3 days after and he then came back to his house and after two days he along with his brother Shambhu Yadva (PW4) went to her ''Sasural'' for bringing her but again appellants told that his sister would go tomorrow and he and Shambhu Yadav returned back. On the next day appellant Munshi Yadva came to his house and told that Parbati Devi had fled away and thereafter, he along with Shambhu Yadav (PW4). Moti Lai Chaudhary (PW 1) and Raghunath Yadav (not examined) went to the house of appellants where he did not find his sister and on inquiry he was told by some persons that his sister had been killed by appellants whereas some persons told him that she had fled away. He has further stated that he made a hectic search for his sister but he could not find her and he then went to the police station where his fardbeyan was recorded. The formal FIR (Ext. 1) show that the same has been drawn on the typed copy of written report of information but the prosecution did not get this typed copy formally proved. In this view of the fact the evidence of informant that he went to the police station where his statement was recorded by police on which he put his LTI is quite doubtful. Shambhu Yadav (PW 4), another brother of Parbati Devi, in his evidence, has said that about 5 1/2 years ago his sister Parbati Devi was married to appellant Ram Prit Yadav and after marriage she used to reside with her husband but since 5-6 months the is traceless and when he came to know this fact he went to the house of appellant Ram Prit Yadav and he did not find his sister there. He has said that he also made hectic search for his sister but villagers told him that they did not know anything about her and he then came back and told about the aforesaid fact to his brother (informant). He has not supported the case of informant that he along with informant had gone to the house of appellants to bring his sister with them and appellants at that time had told that their sister would go to their house on the next day. His evidence does not support the case of informant that when appellant Munshi Yadav came to his house and informed that Parbati Devi had fled away, he along with informant, Moti Lai Chaudhary (PW 1) and Raghunath Yadav went to the house of appellants. Besides this, as stated above, the informant in his written report has stated that when he came to know that Parbati Devi had been assaulted by the appellants and her hand been broken and she was not in a position to walk, he (informant) sent this witness (Shambhu Yadav) to the house of appellants where this witness was told by his sister about the assault on her by appellants but this witness in his evidence has not said that he ever met his sister at her ''Sasural''. Janki Devi (PW 5), mother of Parbati Devi, has also stated that her son Shambhu (PW 4) had gone to the ''Sasural'' of Parbati Devi where he found her leg and arm broken and when he next time went there he did not find Parbati Devi in her ''Sasural''. She has further said that she came to know through C.I.D. that appellants after killing Parbati Devi had thrown her dead body but in her cross-examination she has said that she had not stated before the police that appellants after killing Parbati Devi had thrown her dead-body. As stated above, her evidence does not find any support from the evidence of her son Shambhu Yadav (PW 4). Moti Lal Chaudhary (PW 1) who is said to have gone along with informant to the ''Sasaural'' of Parbati Devi has simply stated that he along with Shambhu (PW 4) had gone to the ''Sasural'' of Parbati Devi 4-5 months ago and he had not found Parbati Devi there. He has said that he did not come to know anything at the ''Sasural'' of Parbati Devi.

Three witnesses on behalf of appellants have been examined, Suman Prasad (DW 1) has proved the affidavit said to be sworn by enformant and a compromise petition executed by informant Mangal Yadav and appellant Munshi Yadav (Annexure B). In this affidavit the informant had stated that his sister at her own will left her ''Sasural'' and went to the house of her maternal uncle and thereafter, she left the house of her maternal uncle also. Kedar Singh (DW 2) has said that on one evening he had seen the wife of appellant Ram Prit Yadav sweeping the house and on the next day when he inquired from appellant Munshi Yadav about her he told him that she had fled away. He has further said that he is neighbour of appellants and he has never seen them quarrelling with Parbati Devi. Rajeshwar Yadav (DW 3) has said that he is a neighbour of appellant Ram Prit Yadav and appellant Ram Prit Yadav and the members of his family never quarrelled with Parbati Devi or never assaulted her. He has further said that appellants Munshi Yadav and Ram Prit Yadav were searching Parbati Devi by moving in the village and they told him that Parbati Devi was traceless.

In this case we find that there is no material on record to show that Parbati Devi, sister of informant, is dead. In absence of death of Parbati Devi this case cannot be treated as a case u/s 304-B/201, IPC for which the appellants have been found guilty and convicted and sentenced as indicated above. In para 8 of his evidence the informant has clearly stated that he has not come to know till date whether his sister is dead or alive. Similarly. Shambhu Yadav (PW4) has stated that Parbati Devi is traceless since 5-6 months.

In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Court below convicting and sentencing the appellants is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge. Appellant Ram Prit Yadav, who is in jail, is ordered to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case and the remaining appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.