R.N. Sahay, J.
1. These appeals arise from Sessions Trial No. 128/93 47/96 on the file of 1st. Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in which seven persons were placed on trial having been charged under Sections 304B, 498 and 201 IPC for unnatural death of Subida Devi wife of Pradeep Paswan, the appellant in Cr. App. No. 217/97.
2. The trial Court acquitted the three accused persons, namely, Shanti Devi, Indra Devi and Ranjit Paswan and convicted Pradip Paswan, his brothers Kalicharan Paswan and Chandradip Paswan and his father Kapil Paswan. Criminal Appeal No. 201/97, was filed by Kali Charan Paswan, Chandradip Paswan and Kapil Paswan. The appellants in both the appeals were found guilty under Sections 304B, 498 and 201 IPC and sentenced 10 years under Section 304B, and three years under Sections 498B and 201 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief was that Subida Devi daughter of Chotan Paswan (P.W. 4), the informant, was married with accused Pradeep Paswan son of appellant Kapil Paswan four years prior to the alleged occurrence. The Rukshadi was performed after two years of marriage and at that time of marriage the ornaments of silver was presented by the informant to his daughter deceased Subida Devi. Accused Pradeep Paswan son-in-law of the informant began to demand cycle and golden earring at the time of Rukshadi and told that in case these articles are not given the result will be worse. He will remarry another lady. The informant and his Gotia told him the informant is a poor person and he could not give these articles and as per his names daughter was given dowry at the time of marriage. After Rukshadi the mother-in-law, the father in-law, Bhainsur, Devar and Nanad unused to assault her and drove her from the house and informant was given threatening that if those articles were not brought she will be killed, and accused Pradeep Paswan will be remarried with another woman. In the month of March accused persons assaulted and drove put the deceased who came to her father and stayed there for some days. Informant sent the deceased to her Sasural 10 days prior to the occurrence. The informant had also gone to her Sasural and requested accused persons to keep the deceased honourably as she was the honour of the family but they became angry. Thereafter the informant leaving the deceased at her Sasural returned on 27.2.1992. The informant has gone to Barbigha Bazar alongwith one Bhagwan Das where he met Govind Paswan of village Dharampur and enquired him about his daughter. He disclosed the accused persons had murdered Subida Devi on the night of Wednesday and disposed of her dead body, and absconded. On hearing this shocking news the informant went to the Sasural of the deceased alongwith Bhagwan Das, but none of the accused were found present and after enquiry from a neighbour one Nandi Paswan he learnt that the accused person after committing the murder disposed of the dead body. He searched at nearby places but he failed to get any trace of his daughter. Thereafter he filed a complaint petition being complaint case No. 71(c) of 1992 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nalanda at Biharsharif, who referred the complaint to the police for instituting a case.
4. The defence of the appellants was that no dowry was demanded either at the time of marriage or after the marriage. The deceased was given love and honour by all the family members. She died due to cholera for which treatment was given to her by a local Vaidh.
5. The learned Additional who tried these appellants was convicted from the evidence of Brahmdeo Paswan (P.W. 1), Bhagwan Paswan (P.W. 2), Sharda Devi (P.W. 3) mother of the deceased, Chotan Paswan (P.W. 4) father of the deceased, P.W. 5 jugal Paswan, Arun Paswan (P.W. 6) that Subida Devi was died due to unnatural death on account of demand of dowry.
6. The evidence of the material witnesses has been summaried as follows:
(1) The marriage of the deceased with appellant Pradeep was solemnised in the year 1990. At the time of Ruksadi demand of dowry and cycle was made by the appellants. The father being a poor man expressed his inability to meet the demand. The accused persons agreed to take the deceased without earring and cycle. After Ruksadi she was subjected to beating and given out her Sasural.
(2) Subida Devi (deceased) returned to Naihar and told her parents and villagers that she was being tortured by the accused persons. Witness Chotan Paswan took her to Sasural just 20 days prior to the occurrence. Chotan Paswan had gone to Barbigha alongwith Bhagwan Das where he met Gobind Paswan. He told them that in laws of Subida Devi had murdered here. The dead body of the deceased was disposed of without intimation to her parents.
7. Chotan Paswan, unfortunate father of the victim Subida Devi in his evidence alleged that appellants Kali Charan Paswan. Chandradip Paswan, Kapil Paswan and Pradeep Paswan had come for Ruksadi and they demanded gold ear-ring and bicycle. Chotan was not in a position to meet the demand. He boldly told this fact to them. After persuasion by villagers and Gotias of Chotan Paswan the accused persons became ready for Ruksadi. At the same time they gave threatening not Chotan Paswan that in case the demand was not meet his daughter will be murdered. Subida left her Sasural after about 10 days of the Ruksadi after being driven out after being assaulted. It means that she was tortured by the husband and in laws. She was beaten because gold ear-ring and cycle was not given to Pradeep Paswan. The evidence is that she was assaulted several times and driven out on account of non-payment of cycle and ear-ring. She came to her Naihar for the last time 20 days earlier of the occurrence. She was taken back to her Sasural by her husband. Chotan Paswan, father, went to the house of the son in law. Son-in-law and other family members became angry. Then the informant returned after giving some advice to the accused persons.
8. Bhagwan Das (P.W. 2) met Govind Paswan of village Dharampur and enquired him about the deceased. Govind on enquiry told them that Subida Devi had been murdered and her dead body disposed of. The informant visited the house of the accused persons. The house was found locked. The villages informed that Subida was murdered and her dead body was disposed of. Accused persons absconded. Bhagwan Das's statement corroborated the substantial part of the evidence of the informant.
9. Brahmdeo Paswan (P.W. 1) has also corroborated the evidence of Chotan Paswan and Bhagwan Das. The evidence of Jugal Paswan (P.W. 5) and Arun Paswan (P.W. 6) also thrown light on the prosecution case. They have supported the evidence of other witnesses.
10. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence reached the following conclusions:
From the above discussions it is evidence that it appears that the prosecution witnesses have consistently stated that accused Pradeep Paswan, Kapil Paswan, Chandradlp Paswan arid Ranjit Paswan and Kali Charan Paswan came for Ruksadi and they demanded cycle and ear-ring otherwise they will not took the deceased on Ruksadi and that on request of the informant and others they agreed and carried the deceased on Ruksadi. They have also consistently stated that after sometimes of the Ruksadi accused, persons drove out the -deceased after assaulting her and she came to her Maike. They have also consistently stated that accused persons drove out the deceased from their house after assaulting her 7-8 times and she always went to her Maike and that informant Chotan Paswan all the time carried her to her Sasural. It has also come into testimony of the prosecution evidence that accused Pradip Paswan. Chandradip Paswan, Kalicharan Paswan and Ranjit Paswan had extended threat that consequences will be bad in case cycle and ear-ring is not given to them. There are also consistent statement that one Bal Gobind Paswan told the informant and P.W. 2 Bhagwan Das in Barbigha Bazar that accused persons committed murder of deceased and have disposed of the dead body and that Chotan Paswan and Bhagwan Das went to village Dharmpur and found the house of accused persons locked up and none of the accused present there. There is lacuna in the prosecution evidence that the above referred Bal Govind Paswan has not been examined in the case.
11. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has considered the defence case in para 16 of the judgment as extracted below:
The defence has taken plea that after marriage there has been no Ruksadi of the deceased after her marriage and she had been either made traceless or died at her Maike and the informant and others consulting their lawyer who is their Gotiya instituted a false case and demanded money from accused persons and that demand was denied by them. They have also taken plea while cross-examining prosecution witnesses that the deceased suffered from cholera and she was treated by village Baidya but she died and the informant was informed about her death and for cremation who did not participate in the cremation of the deceased. Standing to the plea accused persons examined D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 and admitted the death of the deceased at her Sasural. D.W. 1 has stated that no dowry was demanded either at the time of marriage or after her marriage. He has also stated that the deceased Subida Devi was kept by accused Pradip and his family members with all love and honour. He has stated that the deceased died in the later period of January, 1992. He has stated that she suffered from cholera and was treated by a Baidya and that information about death was given to the father of the deceased Chotan Paswan who did not participate in the cremation. He has stated that the deceased was not treated by a doctor as there is no doctor in the village or nearby the village. He has stated that accused Indri Devi has been married in the year 1983-84 and she reside with her husband. At the same time he has stated that he does not know the village where she has been married. He has also stated that Ranjit Paswan has no relationship with accused Pradip Paswan and that other accused persons are separate from Pradip Paswan who were separate from before the death of deceased Subida Devi. In para 4 of his cross-examination he has stated that there is a Pakki road from his village to Sarmera where is Government hospital and there are also private practitioners M.B.B.S. Doctors. Further he has stated that there is no Baidya in his village. The Baidh who treated deceased Subida Devi is a resident of village Shashaur village is at a distance of one kilometre from his village which is a paidal rasta. He has admitted that the police has examined him and was witness in this case and has stated that he learnt that warrant of arrest was issued against him. It was suggested that he had come to Court and he told to the father of the deceased that he will not give evidence as it is a matter of his village. This assertion has been denied by him. It was asserted to him that deceased Subida Devi did not died due to cholera which has been denied by him. It was also asserted that golden chain and cycle was being demanded by accused persons and the demand being not fulfilled accused persons committed her murder and that he has deposed falsely as he is Gotiya of the accused persons. These assertions have been denied by him.
12. Dasai Paswan (D.W. 2), who according to defence treated Subida, deposed that Subida Devi suffered from vomitting and disrohea on 28.1.92. She was taken to this witness by Kapil Paswan and Pradeep Paswan and inspite of best treatment she died. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has expressed his inability to accept the evidence of this witness. The Court held that the deceased actually had not suffered from cholera or treated by D.W. 2. The Court found that the deceased was subjected to torture murdered and her dead body was disposed of. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidence in coming to the conclusion. The charge against the appellant Pradip Paswan is established beyond doubt. It is established from evidence that the accused persons have sent no information to the father of the deceased who was living at a short distance. The conduct of the accused persons was very suspicious. Evidence was sufficient that Subida was murdered on account of demand of dowry.
13. I am of the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellants Kali Charan Paswan, Chandradip Paswan and Kapil Paswan under Section 304B IPC. Their conviction under Section 498A was justified. Appellant Pradeep Paswan has remained in custody since 21.10.92. He has remained in jail almost six years. Other appellants remained in custody for two years.
14. In the result the conviction of appellant Pradeep Paswan for offences under Sections 304B and 498A is confirmed. He has been sentenced to ten years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (six years). The appellants in Cr. App. No. 201/97 are acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC. Their conviction under Section 498A IPC is confirmed and they are sentenced to three years imprisonment. They have already served the sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 201/97 is partly allowed and Cr. Appl. No. 217/97 is dismissed with modification in sentence. Appellant Pradeep Paswan is directed to be released from custody if not wanted in any other case.
So far three appellants in Cr. App. No. 201/97 are concerned, they were allowed bail after they were remained in custody for three years. They are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.