Bal Kumar Bhagat and anr. Vs. State of Bihar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 6. there are some facts which are admitted by the prosecution as well as the defence i. 13. the appellants' counsel has raised some points like delay in lodging the fir and the evidence of prosecution witnesses who supported the case of defence, but who were not declared hostile and as such the benefit of such evidence should go to the accused. his plea of alibi has not been proved by adducing convincing and reliable evidence. mridula mishra, j.1. both the appellants have been convicted under sections 302/34 of the i.p.c. by the additional sessions judge, supaul in sessions case no. 2 of 1998 by judgment and order dated 18.1.2001/19.1.2001 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. in the instant case a newly married bride ranjana bharti was found dead in her matrimonial home. the story of this unfortunate girl started on 3.2.1997 when her marriage was solemnised with appellant no. 1 bal kumar bhagat. after her marriage she came to her matrimonial home and stayed there for about 15 days. she came back to her father's place and remained there for four months. her second marriage (dwiragman) was solemnised on 6.6.1997. her father came for her bidagri on 23.7.1997, but it was refused by the father-in-law and the husband of the deceased stating that after gharhi festival she will be allowed to got to her father's place. on 30.7.1997 satya narayan bhagat and rajendra bhagat at 8 p.m. came on jeep and informed sarju prasad bhagat (p.w. 3) and santi devi (p.w. 2) that their daughter has been bitten by snake and she is being treated by local people. they should go to village tamua if they wanted to meet her. at that very time the parents of ranjana bharti suspected that their daughter has been killed by the accused persons. next day in the morning sarju prasad bhagat (p.w. 3) along with his elder son-in-law manoj kumar and baidya nath prasad (p.w. 1) went to village tamua. there he found that his daughter is lying dead in the verandah. he saw his daughter's face which was black and swollen. he met to his daughter's father-in-law and other relatives who disclosed that she died because of drowning when she was taking bath in the pond. he suspected that his daughter has been killed because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. on 23.7.1997 his daughter had informed him that her in-laws and husband are demanding colour t.v. and they are also demanding their letters sent by them, to the informant in which there was demand for dowry.3. the dy. s.p. tribeniganj, supaul instituted chatapur p.s. case no. 55 of 1997 on 11.8.1997 on the basis of written report of the informant under sections 302/120b of the i.p.c. and sections 3/4 of the dowry prohibition act. the case was instituted against five named accused persons, the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was submitted only against bal kumar bhagat and raj kumar bhagat. on submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session. the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.4. the defence of the accused is that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated by the informant by instituting a case after 12 days of the occurrence. actual occurrence has been narrated by appellant no. 1 in u.d. case no. 6 of 1997 which was instituted on 30.7.1997 at 8 p.m. on the date of occurrence itself. in the u.d. case the appellant no. 1 has stated that his marriage was solemnised with ranjana bharti in the last agrahan and her dwiragman was solemnised in the month of vaishakh. he was leading a peaceful and cordial conjugal life with his wife. relationship of his wife was cordial and peaceful with other family members. seven eight days prior to the occurrence his father-in-law had come to take ranjana, but his family members did not allow her to go. they stated that after gharhi festival she will be allowed to go to her father's place. ranjana bharti after departure of her father became depressed. on 30.7.1997 at 3 p.m. he had gone to hat for selling clothes and as soon as he reached at the hat some one came and informed that the condition of his wife is very serious. immediately he came back on a cycle to his residence and there he found his wife dead. the family members and neighbours informed him that at 3.15 p.m. ranjana died because of drowning in the adjacent pond. he believed that ranjana has committed suicide as she was not allowed to go with her father and lost her mental balance on this account.5. the prosecution in order to prove its case examined 12 witnesses. p.w. 7 uma shankar, p.w. 8 umesh bhagat, p.w. 9 chandra mohan mehta, p.w. 10 jagdish prasad yadav and p.w. 12 meera devi have been declared hostile. p.w. 4 khurshed alam, p.w. 5 rajendra bhagat and p.w. 6 buchi lal yadav have supported the case of defence, but they have not been declared hostile. p.w. 11 dr. ghanshyam singh conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and in his opinion drowning is not the cause of death. the injuries which were found sufficiently proved that the deceased died because of axphxia on account of throttling of the neck. basically the prosecution stand on the evidence of p.w. 1, p.w. 2 and p.w. 3. p.w. 1 is the uncle of the deceased. p.w. 3 is the informant and father of the deceased and p.w. 2 is the mother of the deceased.6. there are some facts which are admitted by the prosecution as well as the defence i.e., the date of marriage of ranjana bharti with appellant no. 1, the date of her coming to village tamua after dwiragman, the date on which the informant came for bidagri of his daughter and the date of death of the deceased. there is only one disputed fact that whether ranjana died an unnatural death because of drowning and whether she was killed by the accused persons.7. special feature of this case is that there is no eye-witness of actual occurrence and it is a case of circumstantial evidence. these circumstances are:(1) the deceased ranjana bharti was married to accused bal kumar bhagat in february, 1997.(2) she came to her matrimonial home in june, 1997 after dwiragman.(3) before dwiragman the accused bal kumar bhagat and his father had sent letters of demand and also enhanced threat in case of non-fulfilment of demand.(4) on 23.7.1997 p.w. 3 the informant had come to village tamua for bidagri of deceased which was refused by the accused persons and his family members on pretext of gharhi festival.(5) the deceased at that time disclosed before the informant that she will not be allowed to go unless demand of colour t.v. is fulfilled.(6) deceased had also stated that her father-in-law and husband are demanding those letters in which demand for colour t.v. was made.(7) within six days on 30.7.1997 ranjana bharti died an unnatural death in suspicious circumstances in her matrimonial house.(8) two different causes of death were disclosed by the accused persons and their family members.(9) post-mortem report did not support the cause of death as disclosed by defence.8. most important evidence for deciding the cause of death is the evidence of p.w. 11, dr. ghanshyam singh. according to post-mortem report on external examination of the body of the deceased he found the face of deceased swollen, puffy, and sponged, tongue prodruding out of mouth. dark coloured liquid blood oozing out from both nostrils.(i) circular abrasion all around the neck in the middle part found was of 1' x 1/2' width caused by lighting substance.(ii) abrasion 1' x 1/4' right supra scapular region. on dissection skull, memberanes and brain substance were intact and congested.neck-muscles were congested in the middle. trachea was fractured, laying lacerated, vessels intact.cause of death -- asphyxia, closing completely the wind pipe. time elapsed since death within 36 hours.in the opinion of the doctor injury no. 1 was sufficient for death in ordinary course of nature.9. the post-mortem report completely ruled out the drowning as the cause of death of the deceased. according to p.w. 11 it was out and out a case of throttling. this post-mortem totally contradicted the cause of death as disclosed in u.d. case no. 6 of 1997 in which the appellant no. 1 has disclosed that ranjana committed suicide by drowning herself in the pond. the reason behind suicide was her frustration and depression as she was not allowed to accompany her father.10. in the u.d. case the appellant no. 1 has also stated that he was not at his residence. when ranjana committed suicide he had gone to hat for selling clothes, where he was informed by some one regarding the serious condition of his wife but he did not disclose the name of that person who informed him about the serious condition of his wife. since the person who gave information has not been examined, therefore, there is no evidence in support of the u.d. case that ranjana died because of drowning. in this context the substantive piece of evidence of cause of death is post-mortem which disclosed that in no case it can be said the cause of death by drowning. injuries which were found on the person of the deceased disclosed the cause of death as asphyxia on account of throttling. this circumstance indicates that a false cause of death was disclosed by the accused persons in the u.d. case and this circumstance goes against appellant no. 1 showing his guilty mind.11. there is no eye-witness who can depose on the point of killing of ranjana as such the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstances can help for coming to a conclusion on this point. p.ws. 1, 2 and 3 have stated that there was demand of dowry by the appellants and his family members. at the time of marriage rs. 41,000/- was given as cash, but still there was demand of colour t.v. which remained unfulfilled. appellant no. 1 had sent a letter enhancing threat that if demand will not be fulfilled he can go to any extent even solemnizing his second marriage. on 23.7.1997 ranjana had informed her father that her husband and father-in-law have demanded colour t.v. and they have also asked for return of letter in which demand was made. this indicates that they were conspiring to eliminate ranjana and they wanted that the letter which could have been placed as a evidence against them should be returned to them. ranjana was not allowed to go with her father because of the planning to eliminate her. these are the circumstances which indicate that the appellant no. 1 was interested in finishing the life of ranjana and solemnizing his second marriage for dowry. another circumstance against appellant no. 1 is that he in order to create his defence came out with a plea of alibi that he was not present at his house when ranjana died. he had not disclosed the distance of his residence from the hat. he had stated that at 3 p.m. he left for hat and at 3.15 p.m. he was informed by some one that condition of his wife is serious. this indicates that the hat is not situated at a long distance from his house. therefore, appellant cannot take a defence of innocence on account of his absence from the place of occurrence as he could have easily come and go from his residence to hat, after committing the offence.12. the prosecution has come out with two different versions regarding the cause of death of the deceased. p.w. 2 and p.w. 3 have stated in their evidence that rajendra bhagat had come at 8 p.m. on the date of occurrence at their residence and informed that ranjana bharti is dying because of snake biting, but in the next morning when p.w. 3 reached at village tamua the appellant no. 1 his mother, father and other relatives disclosed drowning as cause of death. it also indicates that a false story has been fabricated by the accused and the real cause of death has been concealed by them which is the circumstances against the appellants. another circumstance against the accused-appellants is that ranjana died unnatural death in suspicious circumstance in her matrimonial home. she was in close proximity with the accused and they did not have any obstruction or difficulty in killing her. these are the circumstances which complete the chain and the statement of ranjana made before her father on 23.7.1997 is the last chain of this incident. she had disclosed that there is a demand of t.v. and she will not be allowed to go to her father's place unless demand is fulfilled. this indicates that she was being tortured by the appellants and other family members. this statement of deceased can be treated as an evidence under section 32(2) of the evidence act, statement by person relating to any circumstance which resulted in his/her death.13. the appellants' counsel has raised some points like delay in lodging the fir and the evidence of prosecution witnesses who supported the case of defence, but who were not declared hostile and as such the benefit of such evidence should go to the accused. it has been also argued that since the prosecution did not examine rajendra bhagat regarding cause of death disclosed by him as snake biting, the prosecution cannot take advantage of this statement made by p.w. 5. since it is a case of circumstantial evidence the points which have been argued by the counsel for the appellants have not much relevance. the delay in institution of fir cannot be fatal for the prosecution in each and every case. it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.14. in the present case the informant lost his daughter, just after six months of her marriage. it is very natural that the father of such unfortunate girl will loose his mental balance and cannot act promptly by instituting case. considering the circumstances of the case the delay is not fatal for the prosecution in the present case.15. so far the evidence of p.ws. 4, 5 and 6 is concerned, the defence cannot take the benefit of their evidence on this ground that they were not declared hostile even though they have supported the defence version. the fact is that their evidence did not support the defence rather they have given a death blow to the defence. these witnesses have stated that ranjana was taken out alive out of pond, while she was drowning. she was taken to kumarkhand for treatment, but the doctor declared her dead. p.w. 6 has also stated that they returned back with the dead body of ranjana bharti at 8 p.m. this evidence completely contradicts the case as disclosed in the u.d. case no. 6 of 1997. appellant no. 1 in u.d. case no. 6 of 1997 has stated that at 3.15 when he received information at hat immediately he came to his house and found ranjana lying dead. if the dead body of ranjana was taken to kumarkhand then it was not possible that the appellant no. 1 found her dead body lying at the residence. this contradiction also indicates that the defence has disclosed an imaginary cause of death in the u.d. case no. 6 of 1997. this circumstance in itself is sufficient for proving the guilt of appellant no. 1 who is the maker of u.d. case no. 6 of 1997.16. so far the case of appellant no. 2 is concerned it is different from the case of appellant no. 1. there is no evidence against appellant no. 2 either regarding making of any demand by writing letter of enhancing any threat to the informant or to the deceased. the evidence which has come is that he tried to save the life of ranjana while she was drowning. there is no circumstance showing his involvement in the death of ranjana. the conviction of appellant no. 2 under sections 302/149, i.p.c. is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him as there is no circumstantial evidence indicating his involvement in the offence.17. the appellant no. 1 is the husband of the deceased. there is evidence against him that he demanded dowry and enhanced threat of solemnizing another marriage, if the demand is not fulfilled. he refused when his father-in-law asked for bidagri of ranjana. appellant no. 1 also again made a demand of colour t.v. through his wife on 23.7.1997. he instituted u.d. case no. 6 of 1997 on a totally false and fabricated facts regarding death of ranjana in which he took a plea of alibi showing his absence from the place of occurrence. his plea of alibi has not been proved by adducing convincing and reliable evidence. all these circumstances indicate involvement of appellant no. 1 in committing death of ranjana. the guilt of appellant no. 1 is fully established as these circumstances are of conclusive nature showing that in all probability the act has been done by appellant no. 1.18. the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court against appellant no. 1 is affirmed. appellant no. 2 is acquitted from the charge under sections 302/34, i.p.c. since he is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. appellant no. 1 is in jail and he will remain in custody for remaining period of his sentence.19. the appeal is allowed so far it relates to appellant no. 2 raj kumar bhagat, and it is dismissed with regard to appellant no. 1 bal kumar bhagat.p.n. yadav, j.20. i agree.

Judgment:

Mridula Mishra, J.

1. Both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1998 by judgment and order dated 18.1.2001/19.1.2001 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. In the instant case a newly married bride Ranjana Bharti was found dead in her matrimonial home. The story of this unfortunate girl started on 3.2.1997 when her marriage was solemnised with appellant No. 1 Bal Kumar Bhagat. After her marriage she came to her matrimonial home and stayed there for about 15 days. She came back to her father's place and remained there for four months. Her second marriage (Dwiragman) was solemnised on 6.6.1997. Her father came for her Bidagri on 23.7.1997, but it was refused by the father-in-law and the husband of the deceased stating that after Gharhi festival she will be allowed to got to her father's place. On 30.7.1997 Satya Narayan Bhagat and Rajendra Bhagat at 8 p.m. came on jeep and informed Sarju Prasad Bhagat (P.W. 3) and Santi Devi (P.W. 2) that their daughter has been bitten by snake and she is being treated by local people. They should go to village Tamua if they wanted to meet her. At that very time the parents of Ranjana Bharti suspected that their daughter has been killed by the accused persons. Next day in the morning Sarju Prasad Bhagat (P.W. 3) along with his elder son-in-law Manoj Kumar and Baidya Nath Prasad (P.W. 1) went to village Tamua. There he found that his daughter is lying dead in the Verandah. He saw his daughter's face which was black and swollen. He met to his daughter's father-in-law and other relatives who disclosed that she died because of drowning when she was taking bath in the pond. He suspected that his daughter has been killed because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. On 23.7.1997 his daughter had informed him that her in-laws and husband are demanding colour T.V. and they are also demanding their letters sent by them, to the informant in which there was demand for dowry.

3. The Dy. S.P. Tribeniganj, Supaul instituted Chatapur P.S. Case No. 55 of 1997 on 11.8.1997 on the basis of written report of the informant under Sections 302/120B of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was instituted against five named accused persons, the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was submitted only against Bal Kumar Bhagat and Raj Kumar Bhagat. On submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.

4. The defence of the accused is that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated by the informant by instituting a case after 12 days of the occurrence. Actual occurrence has been narrated by appellant No. 1 in U.D. Case No. 6 of 1997 which was instituted on 30.7.1997 at 8 p.m. on the date of occurrence itself. In the U.D. case the appellant No. 1 has stated that his marriage was solemnised with Ranjana Bharti in the last Agrahan and her Dwiragman was solemnised in the month of Vaishakh. He was leading a peaceful and cordial conjugal life with his wife. Relationship of his wife was cordial and peaceful with other family members. Seven eight days prior to the occurrence his father-in-law had come to take Ranjana, but his family members did not allow her to go. They stated that after Gharhi festival she will be allowed to go to her father's place. Ranjana Bharti after departure of her father became depressed. On 30.7.1997 at 3 p.m. he had gone to Hat for selling clothes and as soon as he reached at the Hat some one came and informed that the condition of his wife is very serious. Immediately he came back on a cycle to his residence and there he found his wife dead. The family members and neighbours informed him that at 3.15 p.m. Ranjana died because of drowning in the adjacent pond. He believed that Ranjana has committed suicide as she was not allowed to go with her father and lost her mental balance on this account.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 12 witnesses. P.W. 7 Uma Shankar, P.W. 8 Umesh Bhagat, P.W. 9 Chandra Mohan Mehta, P.W. 10 Jagdish Prasad Yadav and P.W. 12 Meera Devi have been declared hostile. P.W. 4 Khurshed Alam, P.W. 5 Rajendra Bhagat and P.W. 6 Buchi Lal Yadav have supported the case of defence, but they have not been declared hostile. P.W. 11 Dr. Ghanshyam Singh conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and in his opinion drowning is not the cause of death. The injuries which were found sufficiently proved that the deceased died because of axphxia on account of throttling of the neck. Basically the prosecution stand on the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. P.W. 1 is the uncle of the deceased. P.W. 3 is the informant and father of the deceased and P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased.

6. There are some facts which are admitted by the prosecution as well as the defence i.e., the date of marriage of Ranjana Bharti with appellant No. 1, the date of her coming to village Tamua after Dwiragman, the date on which the informant came for Bidagri of his daughter and the date of death of the deceased. There is only one disputed fact that whether Ranjana died an unnatural death because of drowning and whether she was killed by the accused persons.

7. Special feature of this case is that there is no eye-witness of actual occurrence and it is a case of circumstantial evidence. These circumstances are:

(1) The deceased Ranjana Bharti was married to accused Bal Kumar Bhagat in February, 1997.

(2) She came to her matrimonial home in June, 1997 after Dwiragman.

(3) Before Dwiragman the accused Bal Kumar Bhagat and his father had sent letters of demand and also enhanced threat in case of non-fulfilment of demand.

(4) On 23.7.1997 P.W. 3 the informant had come to village Tamua for Bidagri of deceased which was refused by the accused persons and his family members on pretext of Gharhi festival.

(5) The deceased at that time disclosed before the informant that she will not be allowed to go unless demand of colour T.V. is fulfilled.

(6) Deceased had also stated that her father-in-law and husband are demanding those letters in which demand for colour T.V. was made.

(7) Within six days on 30.7.1997 Ranjana Bharti died an unnatural death in suspicious circumstances in her matrimonial house.

(8) Two different causes of death were disclosed by the accused persons and their family members.

(9) Post-mortem report did not support the cause of death as disclosed by defence.

8. Most important evidence for deciding the cause of death is the evidence of P.W. 11, Dr. Ghanshyam Singh. According to post-mortem report on external examination of the body of the deceased he found the face of deceased swollen, puffy, and sponged, tongue prodruding out of mouth. Dark coloured liquid blood oozing out from both nostrils.

(i) Circular abrasion all around the neck in the middle part found was of 1' x 1/2' width caused by lighting substance.

(ii) Abrasion 1' x 1/4' right supra scapular region. On dissection skull, memberanes and brain substance were intact and congested.

Neck-muscles were congested in the middle. Trachea was fractured, laying lacerated, vessels intact.

Cause of death -- asphyxia, closing completely the wind pipe. Time elapsed since death within 36 hours.

In the opinion of the doctor injury No. 1 was sufficient for death in ordinary course of nature.

9. The post-mortem report completely ruled out the drowning as the cause of death of the deceased. According to P.W. 11 it was out and out a case of throttling. This post-mortem totally contradicted the cause of death as disclosed in U.D. Case No. 6 of 1997 in which the appellant No. 1 has disclosed that Ranjana committed suicide by drowning herself in the pond. The reason behind suicide was her frustration and depression as she was not allowed to accompany her father.

10. In the U.D. case the appellant No. 1 has also stated that he was not at his residence. When Ranjana committed suicide he had gone to Hat for selling clothes, where he was informed by some one regarding the serious condition of his wife but he did not disclose the name of that person who informed him about the serious condition of his wife. Since the person who gave information has not been examined, therefore, there is no evidence in support of the U.D. case that Ranjana died because of drowning. In this context the substantive piece of evidence of cause of death is post-mortem which disclosed that in no case it can be said the cause of death by drowning. Injuries which were found on the person of the deceased disclosed the cause of death as asphyxia on account of throttling. This circumstance indicates that a false cause of death was disclosed by the accused persons in the U.D. case and this circumstance goes against appellant No. 1 showing his guilty mind.

11. There is no eye-witness who can depose on the point of killing of Ranjana as such the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstances can help for coming to a conclusion on this point. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have stated that there was demand of dowry by the appellants and his family members. At the time of marriage Rs. 41,000/- was given as cash, but still there was demand of colour T.V. which remained unfulfilled. Appellant No. 1 had sent a letter enhancing threat that if demand will not be fulfilled he can go to any extent even solemnizing his second marriage. On 23.7.1997 Ranjana had informed her father that her husband and father-in-law have demanded colour T.V. and they have also asked for return of letter in which demand was made. This indicates that they were conspiring to eliminate Ranjana and they wanted that the letter which could have been placed as a evidence against them should be returned to them. Ranjana was not allowed to go with her father because of the planning to eliminate her. These are the circumstances which indicate that the appellant No. 1 was interested in finishing the life of Ranjana and solemnizing his second marriage for dowry. Another circumstance against appellant No. 1 is that he in order to create his defence came out with a plea of alibi that he was not present at his house when Ranjana died. He had not disclosed the distance of his residence from the Hat. He had stated that at 3 p.m. he left for Hat and at 3.15 p.m. he was informed by some one that condition of his wife is serious. This indicates that the Hat is not situated at a long distance from his house. Therefore, appellant cannot take a defence of innocence on account of his absence from the place of occurrence as he could have easily come and go from his residence to Hat, after committing the offence.

12. The prosecution has come out with two different versions regarding the cause of death of the deceased. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated in their evidence that Rajendra Bhagat had come at 8 p.m. on the date of occurrence at their residence and informed that Ranjana Bharti is dying because of snake biting, but in the next morning when P.W. 3 reached at village Tamua the appellant No. 1 his mother, father and other relatives disclosed drowning as cause of death. It also indicates that a false story has been fabricated by the accused and the real cause of death has been concealed by them which is the circumstances against the appellants. Another circumstance against the accused-appellants is that Ranjana died unnatural death in suspicious circumstance in her matrimonial home. She was in close proximity with the accused and they did not have any obstruction or difficulty in killing her. These are the circumstances which complete the chain and the statement of Ranjana made before her father on 23.7.1997 is the last chain of this incident. She had disclosed that there is a demand of T.V. and she will not be allowed to go to her father's place unless demand is fulfilled. This indicates that she was being tortured by the appellants and other family members. This statement of deceased can be treated as an evidence under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act, statement by person relating to any circumstance which resulted in his/her death.

13. The appellants' Counsel has raised some points like delay in lodging the FIR and the evidence of prosecution witnesses who supported the case of defence, but who were not declared hostile and as such the benefit of such evidence should go to the accused. It has been also argued that since the prosecution did not examine Rajendra Bhagat regarding cause of death disclosed by him as snake biting, the prosecution cannot take advantage of this statement made by P.W. 5. Since it is a Case of circumstantial evidence the points which have been argued by the Counsel for the appellants have not much relevance. The delay in institution of FIR cannot be fatal for the prosecution in each and every case. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

14. In the present case the informant lost his daughter, just after six months of her marriage. It is very natural that the father of such unfortunate girl will loose his mental balance and cannot act promptly by instituting case. Considering the circumstances of the case the delay is not fatal for the prosecution in the present case.

15. So far the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 is concerned, the defence cannot take the benefit of their evidence on this ground that they were not declared hostile even though they have supported the defence version. The fact is that their evidence did not support the defence rather they have given a death blow to the defence. These witnesses have stated that Ranjana was taken out alive out of pond, while she was drowning. She was taken to Kumarkhand for treatment, but the doctor declared her dead. P.W. 6 has also stated that they returned back with the dead body of Ranjana Bharti at 8 p.m. This evidence completely contradicts the case as disclosed in the U.D. Case No. 6 of 1997. Appellant No. 1 in U.D. Case No. 6 of 1997 has stated that at 3.15 when he received information at Hat immediately he came to his house and found Ranjana lying dead. If the dead body of Ranjana was taken to Kumarkhand then it was not possible that the appellant No. 1 found her dead body lying at the residence. This contradiction also indicates that the defence has disclosed an imaginary cause of death in the U.D. Case No. 6 of 1997. This circumstance in itself is sufficient for proving the guilt of appellant No. 1 who is the maker of U.D. Case No. 6 of 1997.

16. So far the case of appellant No. 2 is concerned it is different from the case of appellant No. 1. There is no evidence against appellant No. 2 either regarding making of any demand by writing letter of enhancing any threat to the informant or to the deceased. The evidence which has come is that he tried to save the life of Ranjana while she was drowning. There is no circumstance showing his involvement in the death of Ranjana. The conviction of appellant No. 2 under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him as there is no circumstantial evidence indicating his involvement in the offence.

17. The appellant No. 1 is the husband of the deceased. There is evidence against him that he demanded dowry and enhanced threat of solemnizing another marriage, if the demand is not fulfilled. He refused when his father-in-law asked for Bidagri of Ranjana. Appellant No. 1 also again made a demand of colour T.V. through his wife on 23.7.1997. He instituted U.D. Case No. 6 of 1997 on a totally false and fabricated facts regarding death of Ranjana in which he took a plea of alibi showing his absence from the place of occurrence. His plea of alibi has not been proved by adducing convincing and reliable evidence. All these circumstances indicate involvement of appellant No. 1 in committing death of Ranjana. The guilt of appellant No. 1 is fully established as these circumstances are of conclusive nature showing that in all probability the act has been done by appellant No. 1.

18. The judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court against appellant No. 1 is affirmed. Appellant No. 2 is acquitted from the charge under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. Since he is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. Appellant No. 1 is in jail and he will remain in custody for remaining period of his sentence.

19. The appeal is allowed so far it relates to appellant No. 2 Raj Kumar Bhagat, and it is dismissed with regard to appellant No. 1 Bal Kumar Bhagat.

P.N. Yadav, J.

20. I agree.