Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.332 of 2000 =========================================================== (Against the judgment of conviction dated 25.8.2000 and order of sentence dated 26.8.2000 passed by Sri Umesh Chandra Jha, Additional Sessions Judge- V, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No.53 of 1994/111 of 1998). =========================================================== Muni Lal Singh, son of Sri Nagina Singh, residents of village-Sadarpur, Police Station-Barhariya, District-Siwan. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV JUDGMENT Date: 30-11-2012 --------- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.8.2000 and order of sentence dated 26.8.2000 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No.53 of 1994/111 of 1998, whereby the appellant, Muni Lal Singh, has been found guilty for the offence under [STATUTE] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under [STATUTE] and for three years for the offence under [STATUTE] , with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently, while no separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.332 of 2000 dt.30-11-2012 2 / 12 2 Dowry Prohibition Act. The other five accused, namely, Sudama Singh, Nagina Singh, Sugriva Singh, Rajmatiya Devi alias Shivajotiya and Dhanaii Singh, who also faced the trial alongwith the appellant, Muni Lal Singh, have not been found guilty and they were acquitted of the said charges. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Jagdish Singh (P.W.4) gave his fardbeyan on 15.6.1993 at about 4.45 P.M. in village-Sadarpur, to Triveni Rai (P.W.8), Officer Incharge of Baraharia Police Station, to the effect that he had performed the marriage of his deceased dahghter, Kunta Devi, with the appellant, Muni Lal Singh, son of Nagina Singh, of village-Sadarpur, P.S. Baraharia, District-Siwan, in the year 1987 and she had no issue. At the time of her marriage, the accused, Muni Lal Singh (appellant), Nagina Singh, Dhanii Singh, Sudama Singh, Sugriva Singh and the wife of Nagina Singh, made demand of cash of Rs.10,000/- and a television but he could not fulfill due to inability and assured to fulfill the aforesaid demand later on. After the marriage, his daughter was sent in Bidai but he could not give the cash and articles and due to that reasons, his daughter was being tortured by the accused persons. His daughter gave information to him and her brother for the same. His daughter always used to tell her brother to hand over the cash and television anyhow, otherwise her in- laws would kill her. He gave assurance to the accused persons that on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.332 of 2000 dt.30-11-2012 3 / 12 3 arrangement of the money, the demand would be fulfilled. His daughter came to her Maika in the month of Fagun and started weeping saying that in case of non fulfillment of demand, she would be killed. In the month of Vaishakh, his son-in-law, Muni Lal Singh (appellant) came for the Bidai of his daughter then he made request to Muni Lal Singh (appellant) for giving time to fulfill the demand, on which he replied that if the demand would not be fulfilled, there would be dire consequences and he took his daughter in Bidai. On 8.6.1993, the informant alongwith his son went to meet his daughter and when he did not find her at the house, he became apprehensive. On query, her in- laws told that his daughter has been taken by his son-in-law to Punjab. Thereafter, he came in suspicion that his daughter has been killed and her dead body has been concealed. He alongwith his son and others started to trace out his daughter and in that course, on 15.6.1993, he found some fresh soil in barren land of Nagina Singh and on removing the soil he found the dead body of his daughter, Kunta Devi, and at that time many people gathered and the police also came and he gave his fardbeyan. He believed that his daughter has been killed on account of non fulfillment of dowry demand and her dead body has been concealed. 3. The fardbeyan (Ext.4) of the informant resulted in the formal F.I.R. vide Baraharia P.S. Case No.71 of 1993 dated 15.6.1993 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.332 of 2000 dt.30-11-2012 4 / 12 4 under [STATUTE] and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused, Muni Lal Singh (appellant), Nagina Singh, Dhanii Singh, Sudama Singh, Sugriva Singh and the wife of Nagina Singh. 4. The police on investigation of the case submitted the chargesheet and after cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial, where the charges were explained to the accused persons, who pleaded their innocence and, accordingly, the trial proceeded. The defence of the accused-appellant, as appears from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, is that the deceased died due to falling in a well. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether 8 witnesses. They are P.W.1, Gautam Singh, P.W.2, Saheb Prasad Chaudhary, P.W.3, Ali Imam Khan, P.W.4, Jagdish Singh (informant), P.W.5, Parashuram Singh, P.W.6, Dr. S.K. Aman, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, Kunta Devi, P.W.7, Shanti Devi and P.W.8, Triveni Rai, the I.O. of the case. Out of the aforesaid 8 witnesses, P.W.2, Saheb Prasad Chaudhary and P.W.3, Ali Imam Khan, have proved their signatures on the inquest report as E

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.