Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 542 (JHR)

Mohan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-15

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar, J.- Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2001 filed by appellant, Mohan Mahto and Criminal' Appeal No. 211 of 2001 filed by appellants, Basant Mahto and others since arising out of same judgment of conviction dated 28.5.2001 and order of sentence dated 2.6.2001 passed by Shri Misrilal Choudhary, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 174 of 2000, hence they were taken up together and are being disposed of by a single judgment. All the appellants were found guilty under Sections 304B, 343 and 201 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 1 year under Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code and also R.I. for 3 years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by Churaman Mahto (P.W. 7) on 3.8.99 stating therein that he is a cultivator residing in Village-Jaratola, P.S.-Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh and he married his daughter, Sarita Kumari with the accused, Mohan Mahto, son of Jagannath Mahto in the month of Fagun, 1999 according to Hindu rites and custom. During marriage he had given Rs. 51,000/- in cash, half kilogram silver, three to/as gold ornaments and utensils. After marriage his daughter went to her 'Sasuraf where she lived happily for four months, but thereafter her in-laws started making demand of a big size Godrej Almirah and a motorcycle and when she used to say that her father is poor man, he has given dowry during marriage as per his capacity, but her in-laws and her husband used to torture her. In the month of Asadh, her daughter came to village for giving examination of Class VIIth, then she told her father that her father-in-law, Jagannath Mahto, her husband, Mohan Mahto, brother-in-law, Basant Mahto and Sohan Mahto, her mother-in-law, Malti Devi and others always demanded motorcycle and big size Godrej Almirah and always tortured her. In the month of Asadh, her daughter came to village for giving examination of Class VIIth, then she told her father that her father-in-law, Jagannath Mahto, her husband, Mohan Mahto, brother-in-law, Basant Mahto and Sohan Mahto, her mother-in-law, Malti Devi and others always demanded motorcycle and big size Godrej Almirah and always tortured her. About sixteen days before he had gone to leave his daughter at her Sasural and had made request to his Samdhi not to torture his daughter for dowry, but on 23.7.99 Basant Mahto brother of his son-in-law came and told him that his daughter has got high fever of head, then he went to her Sasural and found his daughter is dead and 'froth' were coming out from her nose and mouth. When, he started making hue and cry then his son-in-law and his brother confined him in their house in a room and after burning the dead body of his daughter and removing all evidences released him after 4-5 days. Then, he came to Hazaribagh and gave statement before S.P., Hazaribagh in writing. 3. On the basis of the said written report the police registered a case under Sections 304B/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet. 4. Since, the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case committed the same to the Court of Sessions and finally the case was tried by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, who found all the accused persons guilty and convicted them as aforesaid. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in course of trial the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses, but none of the witnesses except P.W. 4, mother of the deceased, Sunanda Devi has supported the prosecution case and when she was examined for the second time on recall she also turned hostile. In that view of the matter, there is no evidence to find the accused guilty under Sections 304B/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code and the finding of conviction and sentence is bad in law and fit to be aside. 6. In that view of the matter, there is no evidence to find the accused guilty under Sections 304B/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code and the finding of conviction and sentence is bad in law and fit to be aside. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed and submitted that the prosecution case has been fully supported by the evidence of the mother of the deceased (P.W. 4) and also by the Investigating Officer of the case (P.W. 8) and as such the conviction is well founded and requires no interference by this Court. 7. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in order to prove the charges leveled against the main accused, Mohan Mahto and others. 8. P.W. 1 is Ravi Kant Kuswaha he only stated that the deceased, Sari1a Devi was married with accused, Mohan Mahto and identified the accused person in court. In his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of burning of the dead body of Sarita Devi her father was present. P.W. 2, Bilaso Devi she only stated that Sarita Devi was married just four months before her death and she died in her sasural. She further stated that she had met with the deceased and at that time she was quite healthy, but she does not know as to how she died. She was declared hostile. P.W. 3, Vaniz Mahto he stated that the deceased, Sarita Devi was married with accused, Mohan Mahto four months before her death in Fagun she had come for giving examination and after examination she had gone back to her Sasural,, On the date of occurrence, Basant Babu,'" 'Bhaisur of the deceased had come and told her father that Sarita Devi is critically'" ill. Then, he .also went to the house of~' Sarita Devi. At that time Sarita was alive and she was being taken to the Doctor, but she died on way. He further stated that he had not seen 'froth' coming out from her mouth and nose. The said witness was declared hostile. P.W. 4, Sunanda Devi is the mother of deceased, she stated that after marriage her daughter was used to torture for bringing big size. Godrej Almirah and a motorcycle in dowry. He further stated that he had not seen 'froth' coming out from her mouth and nose. The said witness was declared hostile. P.W. 4, Sunanda Devi is the mother of deceased, she stated that after marriage her daughter was used to torture for bringing big size. Godrej Almirah and a motorcycle in dowry. She had came for giving examination in Fagun then also she stated that she was being tortured for dowry and when she returned back to her Sasural. On Friday, Basant Babu came and stated that her daughter is ill with high fever and asked them to accompany him. When they went there, they found her daughter dead and some 'froth' were coming out from her mouth and nose and she started making hue and cry and thereafter she and her husband both were kept in confinement by accused, Jagannath Mahto, Basant Mahto and Sohan Mahto. They were kept in confinement for four days. Thereafter, when they were released they went to Hazaribagh and lodged the complaint to the S.P., Hazaribagh. But when this witness P.W. 2 was again recall for cross-examination on 13.12.2000 then she stated that in-laws of Sarita Devi never demanded any dowry and her daughter never told about the demand of dowry. P.W. 5, Tilak Nath Mahto is the Bhaisur of the deceased only stated that Sarita Devi was married with Mohan Mahto is his cousin brother. P.W. 6, Parmeshwar Mahto he stated that Sarita Devi was married with Mohan Mahto and after marriage she was living in her sasural. On the date of occurrence, Basant Mahto came and stated that Sarita Deviis ill and when she was being taken to hospital she died on way. P.W.7 Churam Mahto is the informant when he was examined on 16th September, 2000 in Court he stated that his daughter was married with accused. Mohan Mahto. After marriage she had come for giving examination, but at that time she made no complain against her husband or against her in-laws. Then, she went back to her sasural on the date of occurrence accused, Basant Mahto came and informed him that Sarita Devi is ill with high fever. Then, he went to her sasural and found her dead. He further stated that he made no complain to the S.P., Hazaribagh. Then, she went back to her sasural on the date of occurrence accused, Basant Mahto came and informed him that Sarita Devi is ill with high fever. Then, he went to her sasural and found her dead. He further stated that he made no complain to the S.P., Hazaribagh. He also stated that Hamgarh police had taken only his L.T.I. on paper and he does not know as to what it was written. He was declared hostile. P.W. 8 is Rameshwar Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case. 9. After going through the prosecution evidences, I find that the prosecution story as given in the written report Ahnexure-2 has not been supported by the irformant, Churam Mahto when he was examined as P.W. 7 in Court. He even denied that the written report was given by him. He stated that he had put L.T.I., and he does not know as to what was written. He flatly denied that anything was demanded and his daughter used to be tortured for dowry. 10. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 also have not stated anything that there was any demand of dowry or the victim girl, Sarita Devi used to be tortured for dowry. 11. The only witness, who supported the prosecution case as given in the F.I.R. is P.W. 4, Sunanda Devi, mother of the deceased. She has fully supported the prosecution case and stated that after marriage her daughter used to be tortured for dowry and her husband and in-laws were demanding big size Godrej Almirah and a motorcycle in dowry and just after three months of marriage when she came for giving examination she was weeping before her and she went back after giving examination she died in unnatural death. 12. It seems that although under the pressure of her husband, since he had compromised the case with the accused persons, she was again recalled on 13.12.2000. During cross-examination on recall she had stated that no dowry was being demanded from her daughter and was being tortured but the trial court on the basis of this single evidence convicted all the appellants. 13. During cross-examination on recall she had stated that no dowry was being demanded from her daughter and was being tortured but the trial court on the basis of this single evidence convicted all the appellants. 13. In my opinion, the shaky evidence of P.W. 4 mother of deceased is not sufficient to give a finding that the victim, Sarita Devi who died an unnatural death within one year of her marriage was subjected to torture for dowry and for dowry she was done to death by her husband and by her in-laws. In my opinion, the denial of demand of dowry and torture by P.W. 4 on recall has made the case doubtful, otherwise her single evidence was sufficient for conviction of all the appellants. Moreover, the appellants have undergone the trial and torture since 2001 for their unknown crime and since the case has become doubtful. 14. Hence, in my opinion, all the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges in the result the judgment as passed by the court below, is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 15. Since the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.