Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 715 (JHR)

Shankar Rajwar v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-06-19

DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11.1.2001 and order of sentence dated 12.1.2001 passed by Shri Ramsenhi Thakur, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 1997 whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 306 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 2 Malti Devi has been sentenced five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The factual grounds in nutshell are as follows-The appellant No. 1 Shankar Rajwar was married with Bilaso Devi, sister of the informant but got no issue. It is further asserted that later on Shankar Rajwar developed illicit relation with appellant No. 2 Malti Devi, a widow and this, resulted in ill treatment meted out to the deceased. On the fateful date on 30.5.1997 the deceased has sold 5 kg of Marua without permission of the appellant, which resulted in assault on Bilaso. Further alleged Bilaso thereafter consumed poison and died. The informant receiving the information, informed the police on the basis of which Mahuatand P.S. Case No. 11 of 1997 was registered against the appellants under Sections 498A, 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were arrested and police investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet against the appellants for the offences under Section 306, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant No. 1 remained in custody. The case was committed and tried the learned trial Court believing the prosecution version sentenced the appellants as mentioned above for the offences under Section 306/498A of the Indian Penal Code separately. 3. The present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the trial Court has erred both in law and facts. It is further pleaded that the learned lower Court has ignored the facts that out of seven P.Ws, five P.Ws have turned hostile and the I.O. of this case has not been examined. 3. The present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the trial Court has erred both in law and facts. It is further pleaded that the learned lower Court has ignored the facts that out of seven P.Ws, five P.Ws have turned hostile and the I.O. of this case has not been examined. According to this memo of appeal, there is no direct evidence on the facts that the Bilaso Devi has consumed poison because of ill treatment, demand of dowry resulting in abetment to take this extreme step. It is also asserted that the sentences based on these type of evidence is severe and fit to be set aside. All these points were stressed before this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The learned APP opposed this contention on the grounds that the deceased was forced to take this extreme step because of ill treatment meted out by the appellants. 4. I have considered the statements along with evidence available on the case records. The alleged death of Bilaso due to poison is not disputed. The statement of Court witness. Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary who conducted the post mortem on the dead body has reveled that the death was due to poison, vide Ext. 2. The defence has not asserted that death was due to some other reason. The plea taken by the appellants was that she has consumed poison without any valid reason. The appellant No. 2, Malti Devi has produced two witnesses in defence to prove that she was at work on 30.5.1997. 5. P.W. 1, 2, 3 and 4 neighbour of the appellants were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.w. 7 mother of the deceased was also declared hostile by the prosecution, however, P.W. 5 and 6 brother and father of the deceased have supported their version. According to their statement, vide para 1 and 10 and vide para 1 and 8, the appellant has informed them that Bilaso consumed poison because of beating by him as she has sold 5 kg Marua without his permission. During cross examination this witness has not been contradicted on the point that Bilaso died after consuming poison and the reason behind this extreme step was beating by the appellant No. 1. It is also admitted fact on record that Bilaso was issueless and being ill treated. During cross examination this witness has not been contradicted on the point that Bilaso died after consuming poison and the reason behind this extreme step was beating by the appellant No. 1. It is also admitted fact on record that Bilaso was issueless and being ill treated. However, no evidence is available on the records that Malti Devi, appellant No. 2 also used to participate in ill treatment upon the deceased. 6. I have further gone through the impugned judgment. The facts have been discussed by the learned trial Court vide para 8, 9 and 10 and came to conclude that the Bilaso consumed poison because of ill treatment made by the appellant No. 1. In such view of the facts, I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant No. 1. It is further found and held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges under Section 306/498A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant No. 2. Accordingly, I find that the present appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Accordingly appellant No. 2 Malti Devi is acquitted of the charges. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, the appeal preferred by the appellant No. 1 shankar Rajwar is found without merit. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court regarding appellant No. 1, Shankar Rajwar. According, the conviction of appellant No. 1 is confirmed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code only. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant, at this stage, submits that Shankar Rajwar has remained in custody from 1.6.1997 till 28.8.2001 when he was admitted to provisional bail by this Court, as such the period of sentence may be reduced. In the facts of this case, where the appellant No. 1 has remained in custody for nearly four years and suffered incarnation for his misdeeds. I find that the ends of justice would be served properly if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. In this manner, this appeal is disposed of. Both the appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent along with lower Court records to the lower Court concerned for information and needful.