IMPORTANT POINT

Where in dowry death case deceased died in suspicious circumstances and body was cremated without informing the parents of deceased, death could be taken to have occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Kumari, J. —This is an appeal against the judgment dated 29.8.2002 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.195 of 2000/80 of l993 whereby he has convicted appellant Sudhir Kumar for the offence under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and has sentenced him on 31.8.2002 to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively for the offences under Sections 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently

2. There were three more accused persons in this case, namely, Tun Singh alias Bal Mukund, Sita Devi and Yasoda Devi. Among them Yasoda Devi died during the pendency of the trial. The other two accused Sita Devi and Tun Singh were acquitted by the impugned judgment.

3. The prosecution case, as stated in the written report dated 19.4.l992 (Ext.1) filed by the informant Birendra Kumar of village Bhelwa. P.S. Barachatti District Gaya before the Officer-in-charge of Gurua Police Station in the district of Gaya is that his sister Prabha Kumari was married to appellant Sudhir Kumar of village Raghunath Khap, P.S. Gurua District Gaya about three years prior to the above date. At the time of marriage there was a demand of T. V and Sewing Machine but, as the informant was a poor peasant, he could not fulfil the demand, as a result of which his sister was subjected to cruelty and threatened to be divorced. About four months prior to the death, the appellant came to the house of the informant and asked for Rukhsati of his sister on the ground that his (appellant’s) mother was ill. They performed the Rukhsati. Some ornaments of his sister, however, were left at his house. About eight days before the occurrence, her husband and mother-in-law tortured her and asked her to bring her ornaments as they had to purchase land by selling the ornaments. His sister was not willing to sell her ornaments but out of fear of assault she came to his house and returned with all her ornaments. On 19.4.1992 at 12.00 noon his cousin (son of phupha) Banwari Mahto of village Deokuli came to his house and informed him that the husband and mother-in-law. Nanad Sita Devi, brother-in.-law of her husband (Tun Singh) had killed Prasha Kumari and cremated the dead body. The informant with his brother Ram Pratap Singh, uncle Sheo Nandan Singh and some persons of village went to village Raghunath Khap at the house of the appellant. Only the mother-in-law of his sister was present in the house and when he enquired about his sister from her, she did not give any answer. Then from the villagers they came to know that the appellant and the other accused had killed his sister and cremated the dead body.

4. On the basis of the written report, formal FIR (Ext. 3) was drawn up under Section 302/201 of the IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter Section 304B and 498A of the IPC were added. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and other accused persons under Section 304B, 498A and 201 of the IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The then Additional Sessions Judge VI, Gaya framed charges under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 of the IPC against all the four accused persons including the appellant and also framed charge under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the accused persons except the mother-in-law. The appellant and the other co-accused ple