Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.120 of 1999 *** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.5.1999 and 17.5.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 112/98/297/92 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya. =========================================================== 1. Suresh Kumar 2. Binda Lal alias Brindaban Prasad 3. Malti Devi 4. Kedar Nath 5. Sravan Kumar 6. Smt. Naraini Devi .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 132 of 1999 =========================================================== Dilip Kumar Sinha .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance: For the appellants: (In both the appeals): Mr.Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate And Mr. Ashutosh Singh II, Advocate For the Respondent-State: (In Cr. Appeal No. 120 of 1999): Mr. S.N.Prasad, A.P.P. (In Cr. Appeal No. 132 of 1999): Mr. Ajay Mishra,A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-05-2012 Prosecution case is based on complaint of one Nilam Kumari wife of Dilip Kumar Sinha appellant of Cr. Appeal No.132 of 1999 which later was registered as F.I.R. when was sent to Police Station under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant/informant was married with Dilip Kumar Sinha on 1.6.1986 according to Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of negotiation on 11.5.1986 father of husband namely Kedar Nath Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.120 of 1999 dt.07-05-2012 2 Singh, his brothers Binda Lal and Sarwan Kumar demanded Rs. 25,000/- by way of dowry besides other articles as consideration for marriage. At the time of marriage, father of complainant gave ornaments of 5 tola gold, 5 tola silver, one TV and utensils etc but not to the satisfaction of the in-laws. This demand continued even after marriage when she went to her Sasural at Mohalla Ghoghari Tand, Gaya. All her gold, silver and Rs. 1,000/- were taken forcibly by husband on persuasion of other accused persons. After 15 days of marriage, father and brother of complainant went to her Sasural, same demand was made rather threatening was given not to keep complainant with them. Bidai could be possible only on promise to pay Rs. 20,000/-. Ill-treatment started after Rukhsati followed by assault mercilessly and demand of Rs. 40,000/- was made. Several requests at different occasions were made by father of complainant to keep complainant by accused persons giving dignity for which she was entitled, remained unheard. 3. On 22.8.1989 informant came to her Sasural at Gaya. After some time, she was taken to Patratu by husband where husband, his brother Sarwan Kumar, wife Narayani Devi and Kedar Nath assaulted her by means of fist and kicks with threatening to kill. They threw her on railway track with intent to kill but any how she was saved. Cruelty has been defined by giving no food also. 4. The trial is ended to conviction and sentence to accused appellants for the offence under [STATUTE] and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. I.A.No. 368 of 2012 at Flag-A has been filed on behalf of counsel for appellants stating therein that appellant nos. 3,4 and 6 namely Malti Devi, Kedar Nath and Narayani Devi have died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence their names be expunged from the memo of appeal. Accordingly, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.120 of 1999 dt.07-05-2012 3 the prayer is allowed. Appeal on their behalf is abated. 6. In all ten witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution and they are P.W.1 Pankaj Kumar Sinha, P.W.2 Rajesh Kumar, P.W.3 Rajiv Kumar, P.W.4 Meena Devi, P.W.5 Kusum Devi, P.W.6 Manohar Murti Nandkuliyar, P.W.7 Arvind Kumar Sinha, P.W.8 Dr. Sultan Ahmad, P.W.9 Nilam Kumari, P.W.10 Brijnandan Prasad S.I. a formal witness. 7. Witness nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 are brothers of the informant, P.W.4 is her sister and P.W.5 her mother. As conviction to accused appellants is in different sections, so witnesses are to be scrutinized to the angle of particular offence if really constitutes. For that purpose, the offence under [STATUTE] is taken first. Offence under this section is alleged for keeping informant’s ornaments and cash by accused appellants that is corroborated by P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 7 but these witnesses are not eye witness of the incident of keeping of jewellery or cash. Victim P.W.9 is only there who could state about keeping of jewellery or cash by accused appellants but she is not making any statement on this point. So, the incident and allegation about commitment of theft recorded by the trial court cannot be justified finding no material. 8. Another offence for which appellants are alleged is [STATUTE] . No doubt witnesses 1, 2, 3,4,6,7 and 9 are there to state that assault was being caused to P.W.9 but except victim other witnesses are not eye witness of the incident. So the victim herself alone remains to state about assault if any was caused with intention to kill having corroboration of medical report of P.W.8 Dr. Sultan Ahmad who has examined the victim. 9. Vague allegation about Marpeet is leveled at Ghughari Tand, Gaya and Patratu. There is no specification at all for the assault at Ghughari Tand but that is specified for Patratu. In paragraph 4 P.W.9 states that at Patratu she Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.120 of 1999 dt.07-05-2012 4 was ousted after assault. Her hearing was damaged. Dilip Kumar Sinha, Sarwan Kumar and Jai Narayani Devi kept her (informant) on railway track that she would come under the running train. Again and again she was assaulted. 10. The doctor P.W.8 has found two scar mark opining no injury, in no case leading to intention to kill and alleged against three of the accused appellants namely Dilip Kumar

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.