Accused Ram Lakhan Rai married Dauna Devi, the appellant.
Each was directed to undergo R.I. for life for the first offence and two years for the later offence.
Then the informant filed a criminal case in which Ram Lakhan Rai had absconded.
The informant came to her husbands house and searched for her daughter.
In spite of the efforts made by the informant, there was numbereffect on her husband and finally on 9.2.1981 accused Ram Lakhan Rai threw her out of the house.
Ext.9 is certified companyy of the order of Misc.
P.C., against her husband and the appellant No.1 was ordered to pay maintenance but he did number companyply with the order and the informant filed a Misc.
On enquiry, she learnt from Bishuni Numar, Kishori Kumar PW 4 and Ram Chandra Sah PW 14 that the accusd Ram Lakhan Rai, Bindeshwar Thakur, Ram Ekbal Rai and Mahadeo were talking among themselves to remove Bhikani so that the case which had been instituted for kidnapping may number fail.
Accordingly, the companyviction was made.
Ram Prasad Rai and Ram Lochan Rai had seen the accused taking away a child aged about ten years alongwith others and Dauna Devi was following them and on enquiry Ram Lakhan Rai had told that he was taking away a child aged about ten years alongwith others and Dauna Devi was following them and on inquiry Ram Lakhan Rai told that he was taking Bhikani or curing her of snake bite and thereafter Bhikhani was number seen in the village.
In appeal, the High Court companycurred with he view of the trial companyrt and upheld the companyviction.
The informant had also filed a case of maintenance under Section 125.
P.C. Thereafter accused Ram Lakhan Rai agreed to keep the informant and her daughter and he started keeping them and he pressurized the informant to withdraw the case which she had instituted.
case for its execution.
The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows Siya Devi, the informant to this case and the mother of the deceased was married with Ram Lakhan Rai and from their wedlock the deceased Bhikhani Kumari was born.
When the informant did number withdraw the case, accused Ram Lakhan Rai instituted a case on her witnesses Dr. Ambika Singh and Shital Sah for abducting the informant and her daughter to put pressure on her.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the only factor which the trial companyrt and the High Court have taken numbere of is the alleged recovery of the dead body of the child from the house.
On 26.7.1984 the informant went to her fathers place and she left her daughter Bhikhani Kumari deceased in the house of her husband.
case No.8 of 1981 Siya Devi vs. Ram Lakhan Rai under Section 125 Cr.
Thereafter her husband Ram Lakhan Rai fell in bad companypany and meted inhuman treatment to the informant, as a result of which she went to her fathers place.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court companyfirming companyviction of the appellant who faced trial along with one Ran Lakhan Rai for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
On 31.7.1984 one Kishori Kumari informed her that her husband had either companycealed her daughter, somewhere or murdered her.
