Judgement

KHANNA, J. :- Mahabir Mandal (58), Dasrath Mandal (24), Kasim Ansari (30), Mahadeo Sah (60) and Kedar Nath Upadhya (28) were tried in the court of additional Sessions Sessions Judge Monghyr. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Kedar Nath Upadhya, Mahabir and Dasrath were convicted under S. 302 with Ss. 34, 120B and 201 Indian Penal Code. For the offence under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, each of those two accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, while for the offence under section 201 Indian Penal Code, each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under section 120B Indian Penal Code. The sentences awarded to each of the two accused were ordered to run concurrently. Mahadeo and Kasim were convicted under sections 120B and 201 Indian Penal Code. For the offence under section 201 Indian Penal Code, each of these two accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under section 120B Indian Penal Code to Mahadeo and Kasim. The appeal filed by Mahabir, Dasrath, Kasim and Mahadeo was dismissed by the Patna High Court. The four convicted accused have now come up in appeal to this Court by special leave.

2. Mahabir accused, who was practising as a homeopathic doctor at Jamalpur in district Monghyr, is the father of Dasrath accused. Dasrath was studying in the final year in Medical College, Dharbhanga at the time of occurrence and was having house surgeon s training in that college at the time of the trial. Kasim is stated to be the compounder of Mahabir accused, while Mahadeo accused was employed by Mahabir as a servant to look after Mahabir s field.

3. Indira Devi deceased (18) was the wife of Dasrath accused and daughter of Baijnath Mandal (PW 2) of Surajgarh at a distance of 30 miles from Jamalpur. Indira was aged about 13 years at the time of her marriage and continued to stay after the marriage at her father s house for about five years. The reasons for the delay in the performance of Muragawan (second marriage) ceremony, after which a girl goes to her husband s house, according to the prosecution case, was that Mahabir accused demanded about Rs. 2,500 as Dan Dahej from Baijnath PW. The amount was, however, not paid by Baijnath. Letter dated March 29, 1962 was then received by Baijnath from Dasrath accused wherein Dasrath reminded Baijnath of his promise to pay Rs. 2,500 to Dasrath so that Dasrath might obtain admission in Calcutta National Medical College for the purpose of his further education. Muragawan ceremony of Indira was performed in April, 1952 and Indira went to the house of her husband and his father in Jamalpur. A few months after that in the month of Bhadon 1962, Baijnath took Indira to his house after receipt of a letter for that purpose from Dasrath accused. A few weeks thereafter Indira was taken by Mahabir accused to his house. After Indira had stayed at the house of her father-in-law for some time, Mahabir accused levelled allegations against Indira that she was having illicit intimacy with his second son Rajendra. Mahabir also sent a letter to Baijnath to take Indira to his house in Surajgarh. Indira was accordingly taken in the month of December 1962 to Baijnath s house. Mahabir after that expressed his reluctance to take back Indira to his house. In May, 1963 the Tilak ceremony of Mahabir s daughter as well as the marriage of Mahabir s youngest son Mahendra were to be performed. Indira was not invited for these occasions from her father s house. Baijnath then took India and left her at the house of Mahabir. Mahabir and Dasrath accused did not like this act of Baijnath in bringing Indira and leaving her at their house. On June 7, 1963 Mahabir wrote a letter to Baijnath wherein he complained that some people had set fire to the house of Mahabir on the occasion of the marriage at t