Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 316 (JHR)

Chhotan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2010-03-11

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2002 passed by Shri Chandra Prakash Asthana, learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial Case No. 172 of 1995, by which judgment, he found the appellants guilty for the offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced appellant No. 1, Chhotan Mahto, the husband of victim to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and appellant Nos. 5 and 6 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, he has acquitted the appellants from the charges under Sections 304B/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that it will appear from the evidences of witnesses especially PW-1, Hemlal Mahto, PW-2, Dhania Devi and other witnesses that all the brothers of appellant No. 1, Chhotan Mahto were living separately and there is no question that they have demanded any dowry from the father of the deceased. Moreover, prosecution witnesses PW-5, Jageshwar Prasad, PW-6, Jhallu Mahto and PW-7, Tuklal Mahto have subsequently stated that dowry was being demanded by only Chhotan Mahto and there is no allegation of demand of dowry against the other appellants. He has further submitted that the father of appellant No. 1, Rijho Mahto, who was aged about 83 years at the time of judgment, is now dead, and as such, a lenient view may be taken while passing the judgment. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the trial court has already taken a lenient view and sentenced three years rigorous imprisonment only for appellant No. 1 u/s 498A 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 was started on the basis of F.I.R. given by the informant, PW-8, Uttim Mahto before police stating therein that his daughter, Kunti Devi was married with the accused-appellant, Chhotan Mahto about seven years back and after sometimes of marriage, the husband, Chhotan Mahto and his family members started demanding Rs. 10,000/-. 10,000/-. Since, the informant was a poor man, he could not fulfil the demand of Rs. 10,000/- due to which, his daughter used to tortured and assaulted by the family members. He stated that about one and a half months back, after giving birth to a son, when she came to her father's house due to her being tortured, her husband came to his sasural after fifteen days and forced Kunti Devi to go with him and today i.e. on 31.08.1994, he heard that she has died. The informant went to the sasural of victim and saw the dead body lying outside the well of Hernial Mahto. He alleged that his daughter was burnt to death for not providing dowry demand and then she was thrown in the well. 6. On the basis of said fardbeyan, police registered a case for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 302, 201 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned C.J.M. after taking cognizance, committed the case to the court of Sessions and lastly the case was tried by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh and he found the appellants guilty under aforesaid sections as stated above and found them guilty and convicted them thereunder. 8. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. PW-1 Hernial Mahto PW-2 Dhania Devi PW-3 Ziria Devi PW-4 Shanti Devi PW-5 Jageshwar Prasad PW-6 Jhallu Mahto PW-7 Tuklal Mahto PW-8 Uttim Mahto PW-9 Jay Brat Roy, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body PW-10 Santosh Kumar Singh, I.O. of the case 9. It appears from the evidences of PW-1, Hemlal Mahto, from whose well, the dead body was recovered, only stated that the dead body was recovered about 7-8 A.M. from the well belonging to him. The dead body was brought out. He stated that Kunti Devi was married about ten years back and she had good relations with her in-laws. 10. PW-2, Dhaniya Devi only stated that the dead body was recovered from the well. She also stated that there was no fight in the house of deceased Kunti Devi. PW-3, Ziria Devi was declared hostile and nothing was asked from her. PW-4, Shanti Devi was also declared hostile and she stated nothing. 11. 10. PW-2, Dhaniya Devi only stated that the dead body was recovered from the well. She also stated that there was no fight in the house of deceased Kunti Devi. PW-3, Ziria Devi was declared hostile and nothing was asked from her. PW-4, Shanti Devi was also declared hostile and she stated nothing. 11. PW-5, Jageshwar Prasad, PW-6, Jhallu Mahto, PW-7, Tuklal Mahto and PW-8, Uttim Mahto have tried to support the prosecution case. PW-5, Jageshwar Prasad stated that after the marriage, Kunti Devi was staying with her husband, but there was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the accused-appellants i.e. father-in- law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and they used to torture the victim girl. He also stated that due to non-payment of dowry, she was burnt to death and thrown in the well. PW-6, Jhallu Mahto stated the same thing, but at Para 18 of his cross examination, he stated that only accused Chhotan Mahto used to demand dowry from the father of Kunti Devi. PW-7, Tuklal Mahto also stated that there was a general demand of dowry and torture on Kunti Devi, but he also stated at para 2 of his examination that the accused Chhotan Mahto, in his presence, demanded Rs. 10,000/- from the father of Kunti Devi. 12. PW-8, Uttim Mahto, the informant also stated that all the accused persons used to torture his daughter for non-payment of dowry demanded by the accused persons. He proved his statement as given in the F.I.R. and his signature as Ext.1. At para 17, he stated that accused Baiju works as a Raj Mistri and Khannu does the work of compounder. At para 22, he stated that he cannot say the date and time when the money was demanded. 13. PW-9, Dr. Jai Brat Roy, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, found no external and internal injuries and he stated that she died due to Asphyxia caused by drowning, PW-10, Santosh Kumar Singh, the I.O. has proved the fardbeyan and injury report as Ext.2. He also proved the postmortem report and other documents. 14. Thus, after hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that there was a general allegation of demand of dowry against appellant Nos. 2 to 6. He also proved the postmortem report and other documents. 14. Thus, after hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that there was a general allegation of demand of dowry against appellant Nos. 2 to 6. The prosecution witnesses have made allegations that the demand of money was especially by appellant No. 1, Chhotan Mahto Since, there was no specific date and time of demand of dowry or allegations and PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that other appellants were living separately at that time and PW-7 has also admitted at para 9 that accused Khannu Mahto works in Madhya Pradesh and Baiju Mahto works in Ranchi, in that view of the matter, it seems that the demand of money i.e. Rs. 10,000/- was only against appellant No. 1, Chhotan Mahto. 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Chhotan Mahto is dismissed and he has already served out the sentence and released by the trial court and the other appellants i.e. appellant Nos. 2 to 6 namely Nuni Devi, Rijho Mahto, Dhaneshwari Devi, Baiju Mahto and Khannu Prasad @ Khannu Mahto are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part.