IMPORTANT POINT
Sentencing a juvenile is not permissible.

Judgment

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 28.2.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 419 of 1998 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 437 of 1998, whereby both the appeals are dismissed, and conviction and sentence recorded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Sessions Trial Nos. 192 of 1994/134 of 1996 (PS Case No. 63 of 1994) under Section 304B, 498A and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellants, namely, Indradeo Sao, Nand Kumar Sao and Raj Kumar Sao, is affirmed.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that we issued notice in this appeal, through special leave, only on the quantum of sentence, and with regard to plea of juvenility of appellant No. 2 Nand Kumar Sao (younger brother of the husband of the deceased).

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

4. Prosecution story in brief is that appellant No. 3 Raj Kumar Sao got married to Sushila Devi (deceased) about five years before her death. As per custom, she departed from her parental house for her husband’s house, about two years after her marriage. In the intervening night of 3rd and 4th March, 1994, she died unnatural death. On 4.3.1994 at about 8.30 p.m., her father PW-2 Saudagar Sao gave a report (Fard Bayan) to the Officer-in-charge of Police Station Hilsa, stating that his daughter was subjected to cruelty, in connection with demand of dowry by her husband (Raj Kumar Sao), her father-in-law (Indradeo Sao), mother-in-law (Rajeshwari Devi) and brother-in-law (Nand Kumar Sao). It was further alleged by the informant Saudagar Singh that the accused demanded Rs.10,000/-as dowry at the time of her ‘Bidayee’, i.e., when Sushila left from her parental house to her husband’s family for the first time, which he could not fulfill and resultantly she was subject to harassment and cruelty by her husband and his father, mother and younger brother. On the basis of Fard Bayan (Ext. 4) crime case No. 63 of 1994 was registered against all the four accused relating to offences punishable under Section 304B, 498A and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Investigation was taken up by PW-6 S.I. Kamla Kant Pandey. On 5.3.1994, the Investigating Officer (PW-6) went to the house of the appellant (accused) in village Nadaha but could not find the body of the deceased on that day. Accused had disappeared from their house. Next day, i.e., 6.3.1994, the dead body could be recovered from a distance of about half a kilometer from their house, from a ditch of Dangra Kandha. The tongue of the deceased looked protruding, compressed between the teeth. The dead body was sealed and the inquest report (Ext. 5) was prepared. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. PW-1, Dr. Mathura Prasad of Sadar Hospital, Bihar Sharif, conducted autopsy at 4.15 p.m. on the very day (i.e. 6.3.1994 when the dead body was recovered). After post mortem examination, the Medical Officer opined that the deceased has died of strangulation. However, since he suspected that poisonous substance also might have been consumed by the deceased, as such, he preserved viscera. He has further observed in the post mortem examination report that though there was no clear ligature mark on the neck, but on dissection trachea was found broken. The Investigating Officer, after interrogating the witnesses, and arrest of the accused, and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against all the four accused for their trial.

5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, on 4.5.1994, by the Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa. After hearing the parties, the trial court framed charge against all the four accused in respect of offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Dr. Mathura Prasad (who conducted post mortem examination), PW-2 Saudagar Sao (informant/father of the dec