Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 433 (JHR)

Gangadhar Yadav v. State of Bihar

2006-04-21

D.P.SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT : D.P. Singh, J.- This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 3.4.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 1996, whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma held the sole appellant Gangadhar Yadav guilty under Section 498A IPC and convicted and sentenced' him to undergo RI for two years 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was married with the daughter of the informant Ram Sahay Mahto about five years back from the date of occurrence. According to the informant, right from the date of marriage the appellant -used to demand Rs.5000/- as dowry and for non-fulfilment of the same, he tortured her. The matter became aggravated and her daughter was sent back to him by village Mukhia. However, the matter was settled and deceased Bimla Devi was taken back by the appellant to his house just one month before the occurrence. According to the informant on 23.7.1995 he got information that her daughter-Bimla Devi has died. He went to the village Jainagar and found that her daughter was lying dead in the house of the appellant with black spot on her neck. The matter was reported to Jai Nagar Police Station on 24.7.1995, on the basis of which Jai Nagar P.S. Case No. 44/ 95 was registered under Sections 304B/34 IPC against the appellant and five others. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against three persons showing two females and one male absconders. The case was committed for trial to the court of sessions. All five accused persons, except Birendra Yadav, were charged for the offence under sections 304B/IPC and 201/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. The learned trial court, after examining the witnesses, acquitted all the accused persons of the charges for the offence under Section 304B and destroying of the evidence under Section 201 IPC but believed on the prosecution version that Bimla Oevi was being tortured before her death for dowry demands. Accordingly, after acquitting all the accused persons, appellant Gangadhar Yadav, being husband of the deceased, was found and held guilty under Section 498A IPC and the learned trial court convicted and sentenced him to serve RI for two years. 3. Accordingly, after acquitting all the accused persons, appellant Gangadhar Yadav, being husband of the deceased, was found and held guilty under Section 498A IPC and the learned trial court convicted and sentenced him to serve RI for two years. 3. The memo of appeal was preferred on the ground that the learned lower court relied upon the evidence of the informant alone and there are sufficient materials on record to show that neither dowry demand was made nor the deceased was being tortured for the same. It is also asserted that Bimla Devi died due to accidental fall in the well and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the evidence available on record, the story of dowry demand and torture has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. In this context my attention was drawn to the evidence of PWs 2 to 4, all witnesses of the village of the appellant Gangadhar Yadav, from which it appears that deceased Bimla Devi fell in the well while plucking lemon. However, this story was created at the evidence stage and nowhere it has come on record. According to the counsel for the appellant, even Hitnarain, PW 4 has not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, in absence of I.O. and doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body, the prosecution story should be disbelieved. 5. The learned trial court has accepted these arguments during the trial and acquitted the appellants and others of the charges under Sections 304B/201 IPC. However, the fact remains that PW 1 Basudeo Mahto and PW 5 Sohar Mahto, co-villagers of the informant, have supported the prosecution story that appellant used to demand of Rs.5000/- and for which he regularly tortured the deceased. These two witnesses have ,cross-examined by the defence. PW 1, vide para 7, has asserted that a Panchayti was held and on this score Bimla was taken back by the appellant after executing a bond before the police vide para 10. PW 5 has also supported the story of prosecution, vide para 5. 6. From the materials' available on record, it is apparent that appellant Gangadhar Yadav, husband of the deceased Simla Devi, used to demand dowry of Rs. 5000/- and for non-fulfilment of the same, he used to torture the deceased. PW 5 has also supported the story of prosecution, vide para 5. 6. From the materials' available on record, it is apparent that appellant Gangadhar Yadav, husband of the deceased Simla Devi, used to demand dowry of Rs. 5000/- and for non-fulfilment of the same, he used to torture the deceased. Such story of dowry demand and torture of female is common in the village. 7. Having regards to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I find and hold that the appellant Gangadhar Yadav has rightly been held guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC. The learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for about six months and, therefore, his sentence may be modified to the period already undergone by him in custody, However, I find that the trial court itself has taken the matter leniently and only sentenced the appellant to serve RI for two years. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I find that this appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed and, accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby / confirmed. The provisional bail bond of appellant Gangadhar Yadav stands cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the lower court within a month, failing which the lower court shall take all coercive step for his arrest.