Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 63 (JHR)

Kaleshwar Tatwa v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-11

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT (1) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. (2) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3-5-2001 passed in S.T. No. 77 of 2000 by Sri Dhananjay Prasad Singh, Sessions Judge, Dumka by which judgment he found the appellant guilty under Sessions 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I: for three years for an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for seven years for an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and that both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that although 10 witnesses were examined during the trial, but none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case except P.W. 1, Bistu Bhagat, the father of the deceased and P.W. 5, Rudradeo Bhagat, the brother of the deceased. Even P.W. 1, the father of the deceased, cross-examined on recall, has not supported the prosecution case, as such, conviction and sentence of the appellant is fit to be set aside. (3) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the prosecution case and stated that prosecution case was corroborated by the evidences of P.Ws. 1, 5, 8 and 10, as such, it has been proved that the victim lady used to be tortured for dowry and she died unnatural death within five years of her marriage, as such, he has rightly been convicted. (4) AFTER hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbayan given by the P.W. 1, Bistu Bhagat, father of the deceased, stating therein that while on 10-5-1999 at 12.15 p.m., he was resting after taking food in his house, the villagers of Nonigaon namely Mantu Layak and Suresh Rajak came to his house and informed him that his daughter Pachiya Devi was ill with indigestion (Diarrhoea) and she was being treated. Hearing this, he went to the house of his daughter at village-Nanigaon along with them (witnesses) and found there that his daughter was dead lying on the cot and family members of the house were absent. Villagers told that she has been killed by her in-laws by hanging. Hearing this, he went to the house of his daughter at village-Nanigaon along with them (witnesses) and found there that his daughter was dead lying on the cot and family members of the house were absent. Villagers told that she has been killed by her in-laws by hanging. He also stated that she was used to torture for bringing money, T.V. and she-calf. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Police registered a case under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation; police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against Kaleshwar Tatwa alias Katki Tatwa, Meena Devi, Dhananjoy Manjhi and Chhatu Manjhi. It appears that after trial, three accused namely, Meena Devi, Dhananjoy Manjhi and Chhatu Manjhi, were acquitted except husband namely Kaleshwar Tatwa alias Katki Tatwa, who was found guilty as aforesaid. (5) IT appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. P.W. 1, Bistu Bhagat, father of the deceased. P.W. 2, Man Kumar Mandal, who is a witness to the inquest report to prove his signature as Exihibit-1. P.W. 3, Hami Devi, turned hostile. P.W. 4, Shanti Prasad Jha is a witness to the inquest report to prove by his signature as Exhibit-1/1. P.W. 5, Rudradeo Bhagat, brother of the deceased. P.W. 6, Santosh Kumar Manjhi, is a witness of seizure of rope, which is proved by his signature at Exhibit-1/2. P. W. 7, Jagdish Bhagat, brother of the deceased, turned hostile. P.W. 8, Dr. N. K. Thakur, who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased (Pachiya Devi). P.W. 9, Bhairo Sah, turned hostile. P.W. 10, Mukesh Chandra Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case. IT appears that prosecution case has been supported by the evidences of the P.Ws. 1, 5, 8 and 10, while other witnesses P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6 have proved their signature on the inquest report and also on the seizure list of the rope. IT appears that P.W. 1, Bistu Bhagat, father of the deceased, supported the prosecution case, when he was examined on 14-8- 2000 that there was a demand of she-calf, T.V., watch, etc. by the husband of the deceased and her daughter was usually tortured by her father-in-law and husband for the same. IT appears that P.W. 1, Bistu Bhagat, father of the deceased, supported the prosecution case, when he was examined on 14-8- 2000 that there was a demand of she-calf, T.V., watch, etc. by the husband of the deceased and her daughter was usually tortured by her father-in-law and husband for the same. Lastly, the daughter died unnatural death and he found her dead body with ligature mark on her neck. But, it appears that subsequently, he was recalled on 29-8-2000 and stated that she might have died due to her previous ailment. P.W. 5, Rudradeo Bhagat, brother of the deceased, has fully supported the prosecution case and stated that there was demand of she-calf, T. V. and watch, etc. by the brother-in-law and he used to torture his sister and subsequently, within five years of her marriage, she died. P. W. 8, Dr. N. K. Thakur, also supported the prosecution case and found the ligature mark prominently on her neck. In his opinion, the death was caused due to hanging and asphyxia. P. W. 10, Mukesh Chandra Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case, has also supported the prosecution case and proved the formal F.I.R., Fardbeyan, inquest report and seizure list of the rope. (6) IN that view of the matter, in my opinion the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the INdian Penal Code and under Section 498-A of the INdian Penal Code has rightly been passed by the trial Court, since the victim died unnatural death at her sasural within seven years of her marriage and there was torture relating to demand of dowry till before her death. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has remained in custody for about four years i.e. from 25- 10-1999 to 24-9-2003. On 24-9-2003, he was granted bail by this Hon'ble Court in this Criminal Appeal. It is further submitted that P.W. 7, Jagdish Bhagat, brother of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Even, P.W. 1, father of the deceased, has not supported the case on recall. In that view of the matter, the sentence may be reduced. It is further submitted that P.W. 7, Jagdish Bhagat, brother of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Even, P.W. 1, father of the deceased, has not supported the case on recall. In that view of the matter, the sentence may be reduced. (7) CONSIDERING the fact that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the fardbeyan given by the father of the deceased and supported the case in his examination, but subsequently, not fully supported the prosecution case by him in his cross-examination on recall. The sentence dated 3-5-2001 of seven years passed by Sri Dhananjay Prasad Singh, Sessions Judge, Dumka in S.T. No. 77 of 2000 is reduced to the period of four years under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which has already been undergone by the appellant during the trial and appeal. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is released from the bondage of bail. (8) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed in part with alteration in the order of sentence. Appeal partly allowed.