Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1479 (PAT)

Rameshwar Mahton v. State Of Bihar

2007-09-10

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Pd. and Rekha Kumari JJ. 1. Both the appellants, father and son, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.7.2002 and 17.7.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamui in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1997 holding them guilty of offence under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and inflicting the punishment of imprisonment for life, have preferred this appeal. 2. Prosecution story, according to the First Information Report, given by Lakhiya Devi on 27.5.1996 at 4.15 before the Sub-Inspector of Chakai Police Station is that a day earlier i.e. on Sunday elder brother of her son-in-law Kamdeo Mahto and Arjun Mahto, a resident of village Salaiya Tard came to her house and disclosed that her daughter Jamani Devi died of vomitting and diarrhoea last night. Hearing the aforesaid information, she alongwith her co-villager Jaggu Matho (RW. 1), Laxman Mahto (RW. 2) besides other persons went to village Salaiya Tard, where her daughter was married. There in one of the rooms she found the dead body of her daughter covered with cloth (Gendra). According to her, when she saw the dead body of her daughter after removing the cloth found blood in her mouth and mark of rubbing by rope in one side of the neck. When she enquired as to how her daughter died, aforesaid Kamdeo Mahto and Arjun Mahto disclosed that she had committed suicide and hanged herself. According to the informant, while she was weeping near the dead body of her daughter she was brought in a Mango orchard by the aforesaid Kamdeo Mahto where she became unconscious. Water was sprinkled on her face by her second son-in-law Girdhari Mahto, who had come there after hearing the news of her daughters death. After she regained consciousness, on enquiry from the villagers she was told that her daughter was killed by her father-in-law Rameshwar Mahto (appellant no. 1 herein) and husband Bhim Mahto (appellant no. 2 herein) as also her mother-in-law. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Chakai RS. Case No. 28 of 1996 was registered under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Police after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet and ultimately appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions, where they were charged for committing the murder of Jamani Devi in furtherance of their common intention punishable under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Case No. 28 of 1996 was registered under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Police after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet and ultimately appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions, where they were charged for committing the murder of Jamani Devi in furtherance of their common intention punishable under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution in support of its case had altogether examined five witnesses, out of whom P.W. 1 Jaggu Mahto and P.W. 2 Laxman Mahto are the witnesses who had gone with the informant Lakhiya Devi (RW. 3) to the village of the deceased. P.W. 3 Lakhiya Devi is the informant and mother of the deceased. P.W. 4 Girdhari Mahto is the son-in-law of the informant but has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 5 Madan Ram is an advocates clerk, who has proved the first information report, the inquest report, the post-mortem report and the fard beyan. 6. Plea of the appellants is denial simplicitor and no defence witness has been examined. 7. The court below on appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 8. From the evidence of P.W. 1 Jaggu Mahto, P.W. 2 Laxman Mahto and P.W. 3 Lakhiya Devi, it is evident that the deceased Jamani Devi was married to Bhim Mahto and was living at her matrimonial home alongwith her husband at village Salaiya Tard. There is consistent evidence that she died in her matrimonial home and her dead body was found in one of the rooms there. From the post mortem report, it is evident that she died of head injury. 9. Mr. Bharat Lal, appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that conviction of the appellants is based on the circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances which have been brought on record do not conclusively point towards the guilt of the appellants and, as such, they deserve to be given the benefit of doubt. 10. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the appellants are father-in-law and husband of the deceased and the chain of circumstance brought on record clearly points out towards their guilt. 11. 10. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the appellants are father-in-law and husband of the deceased and the chain of circumstance brought on record clearly points out towards their guilt. 11. Having appreciated the rival submission, we are of the opinion that the circumstances brought on record conclusively point out towards the guilt of appellant no. 2 Bhim Mahto, but those circumstances are not good enough to hold appellant no. 1 Rameshwar Mahto guilty. It is well settled that it is the primary responsibility of the husband to look after his wife. Appellant No. 2 Bhim Mahto happens to be the husband of the deceased and there is consistent evidence that the deceased was living in her matrimonial home alongwith her husband. There is further overwhelming evidence that she died in her matrimonial home and her dead body was found in one of the rooms of her matrimonial home. She had died of injuries on her head but the husband had not explained as to how she sustained injuries on her head. The explanation put forth by his brother and co-villager that she died of vomitting and diarrhoea or for that matter she committed suicide does not find support from the post mortem report (Ext. 1). From the post mortem report, it is evident that she died of head injury. The aforesaid circumstances in our opinion point towards the guilt of the husband (appellant no. 2 herein), but we are of the opinion that the case of appellant no. 1 stands on different footing. He happens to be the father-in-law of the deceased. It was primarily for the husband to explain the aforesaid circumstances and not the father-in-law. 12. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against appellant no. 1 Rameshwar Mahton beyond all reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that he deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and we grant that to him accordingly. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant no. 1 Rameshwar Mahton is set aside. He is on bail, he shall be discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. However, the appeal preferred by appellant no. 2 Bhim Mahton is dismissed.