Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 914 (JHR)

Japeshwar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2010-09-20

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar, J. 1. On repeated call, nobody appears on behalf of the Appellant to argue this case. 2. On the request of the Court, Mr. Shadabbiu Haque argued this case as Amicus Curie. 3. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2002 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2002 respectively passed in S.T. No. 448 of 1998 by Shri Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Palamau at Daltonganj by which judgment he found the Appellant guilty under Sections 304B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years u/s 304B, R.I. for three years u/s 498A and also one year u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that all sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that it is admitted case of prosecution that the victim girl was married to the Appellant's son Bidya Sagar Pandey on 12.06.1987 and after marriage she never went to live with her husband, who was working at Ludhiyana and hence, after marriage she went for only six days to her sasural and after that she came back to her parent's house on 18.07.1987 and after two years she went again in 1989. It is alleged that at the time of marriage only Rs. 1000/ as cash and utensils costing Rs. 6000/- was given. In that view of the matter, marriage was solemnized without any dowry and hence allegation that subsequently a motorcycle and two Katha of land were demanded, cannot be sustained and as such, there was no demand of dowry and Appellant has wrongly been convicted under Sections as aforesaid. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and submitted that all the witnesses have proved the fact that there was demand of dowry and the Appellant has rightly been convicted and sentencing the Appellant lenient view was taken by the trial Court. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and submitted that all the witnesses have proved the fact that there was demand of dowry and the Appellant has rightly been convicted and sentencing the Appellant lenient view was taken by the trial Court. 6. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that FIR was lodged on the basis of a fardbeyan given by the father of deceased Kamal Tiwari on 25.05.1991 and subsequently charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant Japeshwar Pandey (father-in-law of the deceased) and showing her husband Bidya Sagar Pandey and mother-in-law Champa Devi as absconders that they never appeared in the case and the case of Appellant was separated and trial held. It appears that the informant Kamal Tiwari stated that his daughter Sandhya Devi was married with Bidya Sagar Pandey according to the Hindu Law on 12.06.1987 and at the time of marriage he had given Rs. 1000/- and utensils of Rs. 6000/- and hence, after marriage she went to her sasural on 13.06.1987 and came back on 18.07.1987. He stated that after one year in 1989 at the time of Donga, his son-in-law demanded a watch, motorcycle and a ring, which was not given. Thereafter, on the assurance that the same will be given in future he went to Ludhiyana for work. Before going to Ludhiyana, his son-in-law left his daughter at his house. During that period his daughter remained in the sasural only for three months. In the year 1990 in Agahan his son-in-law came from Ludhiyana and took his daughter to his house and at that time he again demanded, but they promised that they will give motorcycle and wrist watch at the time of Donga. Thereafter, he stayed in his house for 4-5 days and went for to Ludhiyana for work. After some time they got information that his daughter is admitted in Hospital then they went to the Hospital and found that she has got burn injury and she died in the Hospital itself. 7. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case showing Bidya Sagar Pandey and Champa Devi as absconders and the Appellant as accused in jail. 7. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in the case showing Bidya Sagar Pandey and Champa Devi as absconders and the Appellant as accused in jail. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, after taking cognizance learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions and subsequently, the case was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Palamau at Daltonganj, who found the Appellant guilty under Sections 304B and 498 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. 8. It appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. PW-1 Dr. Pannal Lal Pandey, is the Doctor. PW-2 Ram Nivas Tiwari, brother of the deceased. PW-3 Komal Tiwari, father of the deceased and informant. PW-4 Sarswati Devi, mother of the deceased. PW-5 Sushma Devi, sister of the deceased. PW-6 Ram Pravesh Tiwari, brother of the deceased. PW-7 Rajendra Prasad Singh, is the formal witness, proved the F.I.R. PW-1, Dr. Pannal Lal Pandey, is the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body on 25.05.1991 stated that Burn injuries involving face, neck and all sides, chest, abdomen, back, both upper and lower extremities and all sides external genitalia, perenium. Hair on the skulled in the middle found singed. He has also stated that cause of death due to burn injuries caused by dry flame. Time elapsed since death 4 to 36 hours. In defence he stated that burning could be accidental. PW-2, Ram Nivas Tiwari, brother of the deceased, stated that the deceased told to me that there was demand of dowry from her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband and on 25.05.1991, they got information that his sister is in hospital. He went there, where he found that his sister sustained burn injury and she died. In his cross-examination he stated that his brother-in-law never demanded motorcycle or watch from him, which was told to him by his sister. It is also admitted that his sister never went to Ludhiyana to live with her husband. He went there, where he found that his sister sustained burn injury and she died. In his cross-examination he stated that his brother-in-law never demanded motorcycle or watch from him, which was told to him by his sister. It is also admitted that his sister never went to Ludhiyana to live with her husband. PW-3, Komal Tiwari, father of the deceased and informant of the case, stated that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Bidya Sagar Pandey in 1987 and Donga in 1988 and his son-in-law demand a golden chain watch, motorcycle and two Katha of land. This was also told to his daughter by her husband. After this, his son-in-law told that if these things are not given to him then he will not meet his daughter in future. Subsequently, the girl was taken to her sasural with brother of his son-in-law. After three months, she died due to burn injury on the date of occurrence. PW-4, Sarswati Devi, mother of the deceased, also stated that after marriage at the time of Donga when her daughter went to her sasural, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband had demanded golden chain watch and two katha of land. Subsequently, in 1991 her daughter died due to burn injury. PW-5, Sushma Devi, sister of the deceased, she is hearsay witness. PW-6, Ram Pravesh Tiwari, brother of the deceased, he is also hearsay witness, he was told by his parents that there was some demand of dowry and subsequently, his sister died. PW-7, Rajendra Prasad Singh, is the formal witness, proved the F.I.R. 9. Thus, from the evidences discussed above it appears that demand of motorcycle, watch and two katha of land, as per the statement of PW-3, informant, was made by Bidya Sagar Pandey, husband of the deceased and this Bidya Sagar Pandey told to the informant that if these things are not given then they will not be able to meet their daughter and mother-in-law has also stated the same. Therefore, the allegations against this Appellant are general in nature. There is no doubt that after giving threat she was taken to her sasural and within three months she died due to burn injury and the main allegation of demand of dowry is against husband of the deceased and not against this Appellant. Therefore, the allegations against this Appellant are general in nature. There is no doubt that after giving threat she was taken to her sasural and within three months she died due to burn injury and the main allegation of demand of dowry is against husband of the deceased and not against this Appellant. Without considering the aforesaid aspect of the case, the Court has convicted the Appellant against whom there is general allegation. There was no demand of dowry made by father-in-law and mother-in-law. However, it appears that demand of dowry made by the husband, was positively supported by the Appellant, hence his conviction u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code justified. 10. In that view of the matter, I am confirming the conviction u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code, but in the circumstances discussed, the sentence of the Appellant is reduced to the period of one year, which has already been undergone by him during trial and appeal. 11. With the aforesaid alteration in the sentence, this appeal is allowed in part. Since, the Appellant is on bail, he is released from the bondage of bail.