Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 211 (JHR)

Adalat Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2010-02-04

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.5.2001 and order of sentence dated 1.6.2001 passed by Shri Arun Dhwaj Prasad Singh, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 1995, by which judgment he found both the appellants guilty u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but only family members of the victim girl i.e. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 11 have supported the prosecution case and the doctor has found to be a case of death by hanging herself, in that view of the matter, the conviction of the appellants u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and stated that the victim girl died within four years of her marriage, which has been proved by the evidences of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 11 and as such since there was demand of dowry just before the occurrence as stated by the evidence of P.W.11, in that view of the matter, their convictions u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code has rightly been passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka and requires no interference by this Court. 4. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by the father of the victim girl Mathan Mahto on 3.6.1995 at 8 a.m. stating therein that his daughter Thanda Devi was married with the accused-appellant, Adalat Mahto four years back and after two years of her marriage his son-in-law Adalat mother and his mother, Sonia Mahtain used to demand Rs. 2000/- from his daughter and they used to torture her for the same. When, the torture became excessive she went to her father's house and subsequently a Panchyati was held in the village where in presence of the Panches they agreed to keep daughter-in-law and not to torture her for demand of dowry. 2000/- from his daughter and they used to torture her for the same. When, the torture became excessive she went to her father's house and subsequently a Panchyati was held in the village where in presence of the Panches they agreed to keep daughter-in-law and not to torture her for demand of dowry. Then, she went to her sasural, but her mother-in-law started demanding ornaments from her in dowry and again started assaulting her about which he was informed by his brother-in-law Adalat Mahto then he went to daughter's sasural just ten days before this occurrence and asked not to torture her for ornaments as he will fulfill the money demand within three months then they agreed and gave assurance that they will not assault or torture his daughter, but just after ten days on 22.5.95 he was informed by uncle of his son-in law that his daughter is serious. About this, he accompanied his brother went to the house of the accused and found her daughter lying dead and he could gather that she was done to death by throttling her neck. He became fainted and was in condition for sometime thereafter he lodged the written report. 5. On the basis of the said written report, the police registered a case under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants under the aforesaid Sections. Since, the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case, committed the same to the court of sessions and lastly the case was tried by the Sessions Judge, who found the appellants guilty as aforesaid. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. P.W.1, Govind Mahto, PW.2, Hira Lal Jha, P.W.3, Uttara Devi, P.W.4, Sushil Kumar Karn, P.W.5, Gangadhar Mahto, P.W.6, Raj Kumar Mahto, P.W.7, Phul Kumari Devi, P.W.8, Kartik Mahatbar, P.W.9, Subhadra Devi, P.W.10, Sambhu Mahto, P.W.11, Mathan Mahto-informant and P. W. 12, Dr. Balram Prasad. 7. It is important to note that out of 12 witnesses examined except P.Ws. 1, 3 and 11 all other witnesses are either formal or they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Balram Prasad. 7. It is important to note that out of 12 witnesses examined except P.Ws. 1, 3 and 11 all other witnesses are either formal or they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. According to the statements of the hostile witnesses, namely, P.W.6, Raj Kumar Mahto, P.W.7, Phul Kumari Devi and P.W.8, Kartik Mahatbar the victim died by putting rope in her neck and committed suicide. 8. P.W.11, Mathan Mahto-informant has supported the prosecution case as given by him in the written report and stated that his daughter, Thanda Devi was married with he accused-appellant, Adalat Mahto four years before her death. The accused-appellant. Adalat Mahto and his mother Sonia Mahtain used to demand Rs. 2000/- from her daughter and used to assault and torture her for the same. Then she went to her father's house and subsequently a Panchyati was held in the village where in presence of the Panches her husband, father-in law and mother-in-law agreed to keep the daughter-in-law and not to torture her for demand of dowry. Then, she again went to her sasural, but his son-in-law and his mother started demanding ornaments from her in dowry and again started assaulting her about which he was informed by his brother-in-law Adalat Mahto then he went to daughter's sasural just ten days before this occurrence and asked not to torture her for ornaments as he will fulfill the money within three months, but suddenly then they agreed and gave assurance that they will not assault or torture his daughter, but just after ten days on 22.5.95 he was informed by uncle of his son-in-law that his daughter is serious. About this, he went to her daughter's house and found her daughter lying dead and he could gather that she was done to death by throttling her neck. He fainted seeing the dead body and was in that condition for sometime, thereafter he lodged the written report. The written report which is marked as Ext. 4/1. His statement has also supported by the evidence of his brother P.W.1 Govind Mahto and his wife P.W.3, Uttara Devi. 9. P.W.12, Dr. Balram Prasad, who examined the victim girl and conducted the post-mortem examination found that it is a case of suicide by hanging. The written report which is marked as Ext. 4/1. His statement has also supported by the evidence of his brother P.W.1 Govind Mahto and his wife P.W.3, Uttara Devi. 9. P.W.12, Dr. Balram Prasad, who examined the victim girl and conducted the post-mortem examination found that it is a case of suicide by hanging. In that view of the matter, except the prosecution case and even the case of the hostile witnesses, it is clear that due to demand of dowry and torture the victim girl was done to death by hanging herself due to frustration of the torture, but the position is that she died unnatural death within four years of her marriage, hence, it clearly makes out a case u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 10. The defence has tried to bring in cross-examination that since the victim girl had no issue and hence she used to be frustrated for that and that was the cause of her committing suicide. 11. However, since there is demand of dowry, which has been proved by the prosecution, in my opinion, the conviction of the appellants u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code is well founded and requires no interference by this Court. 12. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that appellant No. 1, Adalat Mahto was in custody from the date of his arrest i.e. on 28.7.95 and he has completed 10 years of his 'sentence in 2005 and he was never granted bail. In that view of the matter, since he has already completed 10 years, if he is in jail he should be released forthwith. He further submitted that that the appellant No. 2, Sonia Mahtain has also remained in custody for about 2 years and there is no direct evidence that she assaulted and tortured the victim girl, in that view of the matter, her sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 13. Since the main accused, Adalat Mahto has remained in custody for more than 10 years and her mother-appellant No. 2 has also remained in custody for about 2 years, the sentence already undergone during trial and appeal, is sufficient punishment for appellant No. 1 and she is sentenced to undergo the period already undergone by her. 13. Since the main accused, Adalat Mahto has remained in custody for more than 10 years and her mother-appellant No. 2 has also remained in custody for about 2 years, the sentence already undergone during trial and appeal, is sufficient punishment for appellant No. 1 and she is sentenced to undergo the period already undergone by her. So far as the appellant No. 1 is concerned he has already remained in jail for lull sentence of 10 years, hence if he is in jail he should be released forthwith. 14. With the aforesaid alteration in the sentence the appeal is dismissed. 15. The appellant No. 2, Sonia Mahtain is on bail, she is discharged from the liability of her bail bond.