Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 460 (JHR)

Mahendra Sao v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-13

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
Judgment By Court.-This appeal has been filed from jail' by three convicts namely Mahendra Sao Kishun Sao and Tetari Devi against the judgment dated 04/08/2003, passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 27/2002, whereby all the three appellants have been held guilty for committing the offence under Sections 3048 and 201/34 IPC. The appellant no. 1 Mahendra Sao, i.e. the husband of the deceased and appellant no. 2 Kishun Sao, the father-in-law of the deceased have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence under Section 3048 IPC and R.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC. Appellant no. 3 Tetari Devi, has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 3048 IPC and R.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC. However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the informant PW-3 Keshwar Sao married his daughter Pano Devi (the deceased) aged about 20 years to the appellant Mahendra Sao just one year before the date of death. Mahendra Sao demanded a gold chain at the time of his marriage to which the informant assured to give him within one year. Pano Devi the deceased went to her sasural after her marriage. After some time she came back to her parents' house and, thereafter, she was again taken to her in-laws place after 8idai' ceremony. At that time also Mahendra Sao demanded gold chain from the informant and the informant again assured him to fulfill his demand. Subsequently, the informant's son PW-1 Vijay Sao visited the in-laws place of her sister Pano Devi and at that time she disclosed, that when her husband and his parents again demanded gold chain, at this she replied that her father already gave sufficient dowry at the time of marriage and, as such, how can he give gold chain to them. Hearing this reply from her, all the three appellants started assaulting her. Having come to know this fact from his son, the informant PW-3 requested the appellants to send his daughter back with him but they refused and again pressed their demand for gold chain. Hearing this reply from her, all the three appellants started assaulting her. Having come to know this fact from his son, the informant PW-3 requested the appellants to send his daughter back with him but they refused and again pressed their demand for gold chain. Later on, after few days, the informant's mother-in-law Gango Devi informed him that the appellants have killed Pano Devi and thrown her in a well and, then after taking her dead body out from the well, cremated her. The informant on hearing this news went to enquire about the said fact and then it is said that the appellant Kishun Sao disclosed that she accidentally fell in a well and then she was taken out dead with the assistance of the villagers and, thereafter, she was cremated. According to the informant, the villagers disclosed that in fact his daughter was done to death by assault with Lathi and thereafter, her dead body was thrown in the well. 3. In order to establish the charges, altogether 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 4. The learned trial court on appreciation of evidence adduced, before it, has held that the prosecution established the fact that soon before the death the deceased was subjected to torture and cruelty due to non-fulfillment of the demand of Gold Chain and this fact was reported to the informant by PW-1 and the prosecution also established the fact that the deceased died within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances and the dead body of the deceased was hurriedly cremated without even informing the parents of the deceased and, therefore, the prosecution has established the charge that the appellants caused dowry death to the deceased Pano Devi. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae took me to the entire evidence led before the trial court and tried to submit that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubt but on appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that the trial court 'has rightly held the appellants guilty for the charges framed against them. I do not see any error in the impugned judgment of the trial court by which the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 3048, 201/34 IPC. So far as the sentence part is concerned, it appears that the appellant nos. I do not see any error in the impugned judgment of the trial court by which the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 3048, 201/34 IPC. So far as the sentence part is concerned, it appears that the appellant nos. 1 and 2 namely, Mahendra Sao and Kishun Sao have already remained in custody for about 9 years and 3 months against the sentence of R.1. for 10 years awarded to them. Appellant no. 3 Tetari Devi has already served out the sentence of R.1. for 7 years awarded to her by the trial court. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by affirming the conviction passed by the trial court against all the appellants but the sentence awarded to appellant nos. 1 and 2 namely, Mahendra Sao and Kishun Sao, is hereby reduced to the period already• undergone by them. All the appellants, who are in custedy, are hereby directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.