w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Biriu Sah, Laddu Sah, Baiju Sah, Parmila Devi v/s The State of Bihar

    Decided On, 16 January 2007

    At, High Court of Bihar


    For the Appearing Parties: ----------

Judgment Text


(1.) Learned counsel for the appellants has produced before this.court the original death certificate dated 27-12-2005 which shows that appellant No. 4. Bindeshwar Sah died on 13-12-2005. A photo-stat copy of the aforesaid death certificate issued by District Board. Nawadah be kept on record and let this appeal abate in respect of appellant No. 4 Bindeshwar Sah. In respect of appellant No. 5. Pramila Devi, learned Counsel for the appellants is permitted to correct the name of her husband as Bindeshwar Sah in place of Muneshwar Sah.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-2-2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, II. Nawadah in Sessions Trial No. 132/2001 Trial No. 98 of 2001 (Arising out of Nawadah P.S. Case No. 242 of 2000. All the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B/34, 201/34 and Section 498-A of the I. P.C. For offence under Section 304-B/34 I.P.C. they have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for life, for the offence under Section 201/34 I.P.C. and also for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. they have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for three veers each for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) The prosecution case according to Fare

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

beat (Exhibit-2) of P.W.9. the informant. Shvam Babu Sah. is to the effect that the deceased his daughter Sandhva Devi was married with appellant No. 1. Biriu Sah in the veer 1995 as per Hindu rites. He had made gift of usual articles and Rs. 5100/- in cash but soon after the marriage appellant no. 1, his father. Bindeshwar Sah and mother Parmila Devi (original

appellant no. 5) came to the Ouarter of the informant at Biharsharif and made a demand of Rs. 15.000/- on the plea that money was needed for opening a shop. The informant failed to meet the demand and thereafter whenever he visited his daughter the deceased at Nawadah the demand was reiterated by accused Lakhendra Sah. Baiiu Sah (appellant no. 3) brothers of Biriu Sah and their wives, whose names were not known to the informant and also by another vounger brother of Biriu Sah namelv Laddu Sah (appellant no. 2). His daugher Sandhva Devi used to inform him that all the persons were torturing her because of non-payment of money and that the informant should any how arrange the money and pay them otherwise she may be killed. Pramila Devi the mother-in-law allegedly had taken away the ornaments of Sandhya Devi. Whenever Sandhya Devi used to come to Biharsharif she informed her mother Lalita Devi regarding torture meted to her by her in-laws. On 2-10-2000 at 9 P.M. the informant received information from one Jugal Sah. maternal uncle of appellant Biriu Sah and also a distant relation of informant that Sandhva Devi has been killed and her dead body has been thrown in river Khuri. When the informant came to the house of; in-laws of his daughter then he found that all of them had left the house. About the dead body he could gather information that it was thrown in the river till the previous day but in the previous night it had been concealed somewhere in the sand of the river. The occurrence of killing had allegedly taken place in the night of 30th September 2000.

(4.) After recording the fardbeyan on 3-10-2000 and after lodging the F.I.R. on the same date the police recovered the dead body from under the sand near the river and prepared the inquest report. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and after completing the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons who were tried by the impugned judgment and order leading to their conviction and punishment as noted above.

(5.) The defence of the accused persons appears to be complete denial of demand of dowry and any kind of torture to the victim and they have pleaded that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated.

(6.) The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether 15 witnesses. The first six witnesses P.W.1 Dharmveer Pandit. P.W.2 Ram Briksh Choudharv. P.W.3 Jugal Sao. P.W.4 Ashok Sah. P.W.5. Lal Babu Sah and P.W.6 Manti Devi have turned hostile and are of no help to the prosecution. P.W.7. Indra Mohan Sah and P.W.8 Vinita Kumari are brother and sister respectively of the deceased whose deposition is also of no help to the prosecution. They are minors aged 9 and 10 vears who have admitted that they were never examined by the police earlier. They have deposed only to the effect that deceased was married to appellant Biriu sah but have not claimed knowledge of any other relevant materials. P.W.9. Shyam Babu Sahis the informant. P.W.10 Surya Mohan Sah is a brother of the deceased who has tried to support the prosecution case by claiming to be witness of demand of dowry of Rs. 15.000/- by Biriu Sah and his mother. P.W.11 Chandra Mohan Sah is another brother of the deceased who has turned hostile. He has gone to the extent of stating that appellant Biriu Sah used to keep his sister properly and his sister had cordial relationship with his brother-in-law. Biriu Sah and her other in-laws. p.W.12. Kavita Kumari is another sister of the deceased who has deposed that on the date of Raksha Bandhan Sandhya had disclosed that Biriu Sah and his elder brother as well as vounger brother were demanding money and if it is not paid they may kill her but in cross-examination she has denied to have made any statement before the police. P.W.13. Lalita Devi is mother of the deceased who in cross-examination has given UP the entire prosecution case by stating that neither she has seen her daughter being assaulted nor the accused persons demanded dowry from her nor she ever gave any statement to the police.

(7.) P.W.14. Dr. Suniti Kumar held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He found no internal or external iniury and in order to ascertain the possible cause of death he preserved the viscera which was sent for chemical examination by Forensic Science Laboratory at Patna. The viscera report has been brought on record as Exhibit-5 and it shows that thimet was detected in the viscera and thimet is a organo phosphorus pesticide which is commonly used in the agriculture for killing pests and is highly poisonous. P.W.1