Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1632 (JHR)

Baldeo Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-21

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J.--Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.6.2002 passed by Shri Bhola Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1998, by which judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that there is no proper evidence that there was any torture to the victim girl for dowry, and as such, the conviction of the appellant is bad in law and fit to be set aside. He relied on a decision reported in 2002(1) Eastern Indian Cr. Cases page 141 in the case of Sunil Bajaj. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted that there is direct evidence that the appellant was demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and she died an unnatural death in her sasural, which has not been explained by the defence, and as such, the appellant has rightly been found guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution case has been started, on the basis of a fardbeyan given by the informant, Raju Mahto on 26.4.1998 before the Officer-in-Charge, Barwadda Police Station, Dhanbad stating therein that his daughter Mina Devi @ Mamta aged about 20 years was married with the appellant Baldeo Prasad according to the 'Hindu Rites' in the year 1996 in the 'Baishakh' month. He has given dowry as per his capacity during marriage, but his son-in-law used to demand more dowry for doing some new business. After one year in 1997, in the month of 'Holi', he started assaulting his daughter and rebuking her for not bringing proper dowry. He has given dowry as per his capacity during marriage, but his son-in-law used to demand more dowry for doing some new business. After one year in 1997, in the month of 'Holi', he started assaulting his daughter and rebuking her for not bringing proper dowry. Subsequently, his daughter became pregnant in the year 1998 and came to her father's house for the child birth and she wanted to stay there, but on 25.4.1998 his son-in-law came to her house and by force took her with him and on the next day i.e. on 26.4.1998, at about 5 P.M. in the evening, Sanjay Kumar Shaw came and informed that his daughter had died. He went there and found the dead body of his daughter. He alleged that since he used to demand dowry and when he failed to give him the same, he took her from his house by force and committed her murder. 6. On the basis of said fardbeyan, police registered a case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and submitted charge-sheet after investigation. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions and after trial by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. It appears that in course of trial, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is Chetlal Mahto, P.W.2 is Murlidhar Mahto, P.W. 3 is Navin Mahto, P.W. 4 is Pratima Devi, P.W. 5 is Raju Mahto, P.W. 6 is Dr. Binod Kumar and P.W. 7 is Suresh Das, I.O. of the case. 8. The informant of the case, Raju Mahto, who was examined during trial as P.W. 5 has fully supported the prosecution case and stated that his daughter was married to the appellant according to the 'Hindu Rites' just two years before her death in 1996. After marriage, she stayed in her sasural. After one year of her marriage, the appellant, Baldeo Prasad and also his parents, started demanding Rs. 50,000/- and when the same was not fulfilled they started rebuking and assaulting her daughter. In 1997, she came to her house after the assault in 'Holi'. Subsequently, she became pregnant and started living in her father's house for the child birth and on 25.4.1998, the accused appellant came to his house and took her by force and stated that if Rs. In 1997, she came to her house after the assault in 'Holi'. Subsequently, she became pregnant and started living in her father's house for the child birth and on 25.4.1998, the accused appellant came to his house and took her by force and stated that if Rs. 50,000/- is not given by tomorrow, then he will not see the face of his daughter and exactly on 26.4.1998, at about 5 P.M., he was informed by one Sanjay Kumar Shaw that his daughter is dead. Sanjay Kumar Shaw is a cousin of the accused. Then, he came to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the daughter and no family member of the appellant were present there at that time. In his cross-examination, he stated that his daughter comes to the father's house after every three months and she always tells them that she used to be tortured for not bringing the demanded money. In 1997, the accused started torturing her for dowry. There was a 'panchayati' also in the village for the same, in which, his brother-in-law, Navin Mahto had also gone. 9. The evidence of P.W. 5, has been supported by the independent witnesses i.e. by P.W. 1, Chetlal Mahto, P.W. 2, Murlidhar Mahto and P.W. 3, Navin Mahto. P.W. 1, Chetlal Mahto also stated that after marriage in 1996, the deceased Mina stayed in her sasural for one year peacefully. Thereafter, the accused, Baldeo Mahto, started demanding Rs. 50,000/- and when she stated that her father can't give Rs. 50,000/-, then he started rebuking and assaulting her. The mother-father of the accused also started assaulting her. Subsequently, when she became pregnant, she came to her mother's house and started living there,' but on 25.4.1998, Baldeo Mahto came to her sasural and in spite of objection by her father and mother, he took Mina by force on 26.4.1998. When the information was received that she is dead, then he had gone to her sasural and she had also seen the dead body of Mina. It is stated that only because her father failed to give Rs. 50,000/- the accused committed the murder of the victim girl. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had got no relation with the informant, Raju Mahto. It is stated that only because her father failed to give Rs. 50,000/- the accused committed the murder of the victim girl. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had got no relation with the informant, Raju Mahto. In his cross-examination, at Para 13, he stated that he does not know that the accused was working as a casual worker in UCO Bank, Bokaro Steel City. 10. P.W. 2, Murlidhar Mahto also supported the said fact and stated that the appellant used to torture her for dowry, then Mina came to her mother's house just three months back when she became pregnant, but one day befom the occurrence, she was taken by her husband by force to her sasural and then she died in the next day. He had also gone to see the dead body in her sasural and the same was taken by police for post mortem. 11. P.W. 3, Navin Mahto has also stated the same thing and stated that for not bringing Rs. 50,000/- for dowry the appellant, Baldeo Prasad used to assault Mina Devi. On 25.4.1998 also, when Rs. 50,000/- was not given, then he started assaulting Mina Devi and took her by force to her sasural and on the very next day on 26.4.1998, she was hanged to death by the appellant and her family member, only because, she failed to give Rs. 50,000/- as dowry. 12. P.W. 4, Pratima Devi, the mother of the deceased has also supported the prosecution case and stated that in 1996 at the time of marriage of her daughter with the accused, Baldeo Prasad, she had given dowry as per their capacity, but after one year, her son-in-law started demanding Rs. 50,000/- and when they could not give the same, they started assaulting and rebuking her daughter. In 1998, when Mina came to her house, she was eight months pregnant and wanted to stay there for the child birth, then the accused, Baldeo came and again started fighting for Rs. 50,000/- and started assaulting her and finally he took her by force from her house and said that if Rs. 50,000/- is not given by tomorrow, then he will kill Mina Devi and on the next day i.e. on Sunday, Sanjay Kumar Shaw came and told that his daughter is no more. 50,000/- and started assaulting her and finally he took her by force from her house and said that if Rs. 50,000/- is not given by tomorrow, then he will kill Mina Devi and on the next day i.e. on Sunday, Sanjay Kumar Shaw came and told that his daughter is no more. Since, Baldeo Prasad and others had committed her murder, they went to the sasural of Mina and found her dead body. In her cross examination, she stated that after the death of the daughter, she went to daughter's sasural for the first time. In her cross examination, she stated that she never informed the police that her son-in-law has given threat that her daughter will be killed for dowry. She stated in her cross examination that her son-in-law is working somewhere in Bokaro as a casual worker. In her cross examination, she stated that she told police in her statement that her son-in-law used to demand Rs. 50,000/- and that day also, on which he took her daughter by force, he demanded Rs. 50,000/-. 13. P.W. 6, Dr. Binod Kumar proved the post mortem of the victim girl as Ext. 2. In his opinion, the victim girl died due to 'sphyxid' due to hanging. 14. P.W. 7, the Investigating Officer proved the formal F.I.R. as Ext. 3. He has proved the writing of the fardbeyan by the police officer as Ext. 4. He stated that he recorded the statement of the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence. He stated that the place where it was stated that the deceased was hanged to death was only 2 and a half feet from the floor and if anybody commits suicide by hanging, her legs will touch the floor. After getting the post mortem report and supervision from the superior officer he submitted charge-sheet in the case. 15. Thus, after going through the evidences adduced by the witnesses, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that soon before the death of Mina Devi just one day before the appellant went to the house of the deceased and in spite of her own protest that she want to stay at her father's house and protested by her father and mother that she should not be taken to her sasural, the appellant demanded Rs: 50,000/- as an additional dowry immediately and. when the same was not paid, he took her by force giving a threat that if Rs. 50,000/- is not sent by tomorrow, then they will not find the victim girl, Mina Devi alive and exactly she was hanged to death in the very next day. The post mortem report also supports the said fact of death. The Investigating Officer also stated that she was hanged to death because at the place of occurrence he found that the place of hanging is not sufficient for anyone to stand. 16. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the argument of the appellant's counsel that the case is covered by Supreme Court judgment since there is no demand of dowry soon before her death has got no legs to stand. 17. I find no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. The appeal against the conviction and order of sentence dated 17.6.2002 passed by Shri Bhola Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 1998 is confirmed. 18. The bail bond of the appellant, who is on bail, is directed to be cancelled and the trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against the appellant for serving out the sentence.