Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1025 (JHR)

Darbari Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-05-08

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Choudhary - Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IX, Giridih in S.T. No. 390 of 2002 whereby and whereunder, learned court below held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and also held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine. The appellants have also been convicted for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded in the written report submitted by the informant (P.W.8)-the father of the deceased is that the deceased Parwati Devi married the accused-appellant no. 1- Darbari Mahto four years prior to the date of occurrence. After the marriage, son-in-law of the informant and his family members were continuously demanding motorcycle and T.V. Four months prior to the date of occurrence, the son-inlaw of the informant and his family members brutally assaulted the deceased in connection with the demand of T.V. and motorcycle. After hearing about this, the informant brought the deceased to his house. On 11.11.2001, there was Panchayati. On the next day of the Panchayati, the deceased was taken by the accused-appellant Kailash Mahto to the matrimonial house of the deceased. On 22.11.2001, at about 10.00 AM, the informant got information about the murder of his daughter-Parwati Devi. Thereafter, the informant and the witnesses went to the house of the accused-appellants and found the dead body lying on a cot inside the room. It was claimed by the informant that the accused persons have together killed the deceased in connection with the demand of dowry. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Dumri P.S. case No. 83 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. no. 2009 of 2001 and took up the investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellants. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Dumri P.S. case No. 83 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. no. 2009 of 2001 and took up the investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellants. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the court of sessions, charges for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34, 306, 498A of Indian Penal Code and 3/4 D.P. Act was framed against the accused-appellants. Upon the appellants pleading not guilty, they were put to trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined altogether twelve witnesses, including three doctors who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the Investigating Officer of the case. In their defence, the accused persons also examined five witnesses besides proving the documents. 6. P.W.8- Jagdish Mahto, is the informant of the case. He has interalia stated that Parwati Devi married the accused-appellant Darbari Mahto @ Sanjay in the year 1997. He gave Rs. 70,000/- to Darbari Mahto at the time of his marriage. In the matrimonial house of the deceased, all the accused-appellants together were pressurizing the deceased to bring Rs. 25,000/- cash, T.V. and motorcycle from her father. In this connection, they used to assault the deceased. P.W. 8 brought the deceased to his house, four months prior to her death. On 11.11.2001, a Panchayati was convened at the bank of the river between the villages of the informant and that of the accused-appellant persons. Besides the villagers of both the villages, the accused-appellant persons - Darbari Mahto and Kailash Mahto were present in said Panchayati, wherein it was decided that in future, Darbari will not demand dowry and will keep and maintain the deceased properly. A written Panchanama was prepared, which has been marked as Exhibit 3. P.W. 8 identified his signature on the said Panchanama which has been marked as Exhibit 3/4. On the next day of the Panchayati, his son-in-law and his father Kailash Mahto took the deceased to her matrimonial house along with them. Eleven days after the said Panchayati, P.W.8 got the information that the accused-appellant persons have killed the deceased. P.W. 8 identified his signature on the said Panchanama which has been marked as Exhibit 3/4. On the next day of the Panchayati, his son-in-law and his father Kailash Mahto took the deceased to her matrimonial house along with them. Eleven days after the said Panchayati, P.W.8 got the information that the accused-appellant persons have killed the deceased. On getting the information, P.W.8 along with the other witnesses went to the house of the accused-appellant persons and saw the dead body of Parwati Devi lying on a cot in the verandah of the house. There were black marks on neck, belly and chest of the dead body. Froth was coming out from her mouth and there was a puncture injury on the right side of the belly of the dead body. Thereafter, P.W.8 and others went to the police station and got the written report scribed by Ram Chandra Prasad (P.W.2). On being proved by P.W.8, his signature on the written report was marked as Exhibit 2/2. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that marriage took place on 19th June, 1997 and voluntarily, he gave Rs. 70,000/- as present at time of the marriage of the deceased. He cannot say the date of the first demand made by the accused-appellant persons. The demand was first made to P.W.8 just after getting down from the marriage mandap. The demand became severe after one year of the marriage. He never went to police station or Court regarding demand of dowry. Three years after the marriage, the deceased was driven out after being assaulted. A Panchayati was convened jointly by P.W.8 and the accused-appellant Kailash Mahto and thereafter, the deceased again went to her in-laws house. But thereafter, the PW8 further stated that as the accused-appellants were not taking the deceased to their house, a Panchayati was convened for that reason but P.W.8 again stated that as the deceased was not willing to go to her matrimonial house, therefore, a Panchayati was convened by the accused-appellant Kailash Mahto. The Panchayati paper contains the truth but there was no reference of demand of T.V. and motor cycle in the Panchayati paper. The accused-appellant Darbari Mahto did not sign the Panchayati paper. He denied the suggestion that Darbari was not present at the Panchayati. 7. P.W. 2- Ramchandra Prasad is the scribe of the written report. The Panchayati paper contains the truth but there was no reference of demand of T.V. and motor cycle in the Panchayati paper. The accused-appellant Darbari Mahto did not sign the Panchayati paper. He denied the suggestion that Darbari was not present at the Panchayati. 7. P.W. 2- Ramchandra Prasad is the scribe of the written report. He has stated about the marriage between the deceased and Darbari Mahto @ Sanjay on 19.06.1997 and that Parvati Devi died on 22.11.2001. P.W.2 along with the informant and others went to the in-law''s house of the deceased and saw the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot in the verandah. They saw injuries on the neck and belly of the dead body and at the request of P.W.8, he scribed the written report. On being proved by him, the written report has been marked as Exhibit 2 and the signature of P.W. 2 thereon has been marked as Exhibit 2/1 and signature of P.W.8 has been marked as Exhibit 2/2. On 11.11.2001, a Panchayati took place at the bank of the river. A Panchnama was prepared in the said Panchayati which was marked as Exhibit 3. The signatures of P.W.8 and the accused-appellant Kailash Mahto have been marked as Exhibit 3/1 and 3/2 respectively. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he stated before the Investigating Officer that he saw injuries on the belly of the dead body of Parwati Devi. The Panchayati was convened as P.W.8 brought the deceased to his house because the deceased used to be assaulted. He denied the suggestion that there is no reference of demand of T.V. and motor-cycle in Exhibit 3. P.W. 2 was a Panch from the side of P.W.8 in the Panchayati. Neither the accused-appellant Darbari Mahto nor the deceased Parwati Devi was present in the said Panchayati. 8. P.W.3- Sunil Kumar Kushwaha has stated about the marriage between Parwati and Darbari held in the year 1997. He also stated about the demand of T.V. and motorcycle by the appellant-accused persons and one year after the marriage, the in-laws of Parwati Devi drove her out from her matrimonial house after assaulting her. On 11.11.2001, a Panchayati took place where Kaila Mahto admitted his guilt and pleaded that the deceased be sent to her matrimonial house and assured that he will not repeat such conduct. On 11.11.2001, a Panchayati took place where Kaila Mahto admitted his guilt and pleaded that the deceased be sent to her matrimonial house and assured that he will not repeat such conduct. On the next day of the Panchayati, Kaila Mahto took the deceased to her matrimonial house. After getting the information of the death of Parwati Devi, P.W.3 and others went to see the dead body of Parwati Devi. There were marks of assault on the neck and belly of the dead body. P.W. 3 on enquiry came to know that the accused-appellant persons have fled away. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police regarding the demand of T.V. and motorcycle. P.W.3 was not present in the Panchayati. 9. P.W.5- Gulab Mahto has stated that the deceased was his niece. He has also stated about the marriage of the deceased with Darbari Mahto in the year 1997. In the matrimonial house of the deceased, the accused-appellant persons were demanding Rajdoot motorcycle and T.V. from the deceased and they used to assault her for not fulfilling the said demand. Six months prior to the death of the deceased, P.W.8 brought the deceased to his house. On 22.11.2000, his brother got the information that the deceased was murdered. After getting the information, P.W.5 along with the others went to the house of the appellant-accused persons. There was a punctured wound above the right thigh of the dead body and cloth were inserted in it. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there is no provision of electricity in the village of P.W.5 or in the village of the appellant-accused persons. The demand of dowry started two months after marriage. No case was ever instituted in respect of the demand of dowry. He does not know whether the accused-appellant - Kaila Mahto was intending to keep the deceased or not. 10. P.W. 6- Bokhni Devi is the mother of the deceased. She has stated about the marriage of her daughter with the accused-appellant Darbari Mahto. P.W.6 has also stated that the accused-appellants were demanding one Rajdoot motorcycle and colour T.V. and for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the deceased was assaulted by the accused-appellants. Four-five months prior to the death of the deceased, Darbari Mahto assaulted her at which, P.W.8 brought the deceased to his house. P.W.6 has also stated that the accused-appellants were demanding one Rajdoot motorcycle and colour T.V. and for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the deceased was assaulted by the accused-appellants. Four-five months prior to the death of the deceased, Darbari Mahto assaulted her at which, P.W.8 brought the deceased to his house. On getting the information of the death of the deceased, she went to the house of the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants were not present in their house but the dead body of the deceased was kept on a cot in the courtyard. In her cross-examination, she stated that her son-in-law was living in his village at the time of his marriage and after marriage also, he never went outside in connection with any service. The financial condition of the appellant-accused persons was better than P.W.6. The demand started immediately after the marriage. She volunteered to state that the accused-appellants were also demanding Rs. 50,000/-. She heard about the demand from the deceased. The husband of the deceased took the deceased as per the decision in the Panchayati. She has not seen the entire dead body of the deceased. She only saw the face of the deceased after removing the cloth and other persons with P.W.6 have also seen the face of the deceased only. She was not examined by the police. 11. P.W.7- Kauleshwar Prasad, is the brother of the deceased. He has stated about the marriage of the deceased with Darbari. Besides Rs. 60,000/- cash, other articles were presented at the time of the marriage. The accused-appellants were assaulting the deceased in her matrimonial house in connection with the demand of Rs. 25,000/-, T.V. and motorcycle. Whenever, the deceased was coming to the house of P.W.7, she used to tell about the threatening given by the appellant-accused persons and they killed his sister for non-fulfillment of the dowry. On 11.11.2001, there was a Panchayati at the bank of the river. The accused-appellants-Darbari Mahto and Kailash Mahto undertook to keep and maintain the deceased properly and on the next day, Darbari and Kailash took Parwati to her matrimonial house. On getting the information, P.W.7 with others went to the house of the appellant-accused persons and saw the dead body of Parwati Devi lying on a cot. There were marks of injury on the waist, chest and neck on the dead body of the deceased. On getting the information, P.W.7 with others went to the house of the appellant-accused persons and saw the dead body of Parwati Devi lying on a cot. There were marks of injury on the waist, chest and neck on the dead body of the deceased. Blood was oozing out from the nose of the deceased. In his crossexamination, he has stated that the demand of T.V. and motorcycle started two years after the marriage. P.W.7 saw the dead body in presence of his mother and father. In the Panchayati, P.W.7 was present. The accused-appellant Darbari and the deceased were present in the meeting and all had signed in the paper prepared by the Panch. Darbari also signed but Parwati did not sign. Even after the assault and threatening, the deceased was intending to stay in her matrimonial house. He denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police about the demand of Rs. 25,000/-. 12. P.W. 9- Chandrika Turi, is the Choukidar of the village. He has stated that on 23.11.2001, he saw the dead body of the deceased and he saw the marks of injury on her neck and belly. The police prepared the inquest report of the dead body and P.W.9 and P.W.10-who is another Choukidar, have also signed on the same. In his crossexamination, he has stated that he saw bleeding injury on the neck and belly. 13. P.W.10- Kishun Turi, has stated that he saw dead body of the daughter-in-law of the accused-appellants Kaila Mahto. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his house is situated near the house of Kaila Mahto. The daughter-in-law of Kaila Mahto died because of hanging. On that day, all the inmates of the house of the accused-appellants had gone to the river Barakar for performing Chath. The deceased was alone in the house. The deceased did not like to stay in her matrimonial house. Her father sent the deceased forcibly to her matrimonial house. The husband of the deceased was working outside since before the death of the deceased. 14. P.W.11- Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad stated that on 25.11.2001 at about 3.00 PM, postmortem examination was conducted by a medical board consisting of three members being - P.W.1- Dr. Rajesh Kumar, P.W.4- Dr. Ijhar Anwar and P.W.11- Dr. The husband of the deceased was working outside since before the death of the deceased. 14. P.W.11- Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad stated that on 25.11.2001 at about 3.00 PM, postmortem examination was conducted by a medical board consisting of three members being - P.W.1- Dr. Rajesh Kumar, P.W.4- Dr. Ijhar Anwar and P.W.11- Dr. Kamleshwar on the dead body of Parwati Devi and the following was found - Both eyes closed, hair black and body in the process of de-composition. Rigor mortis absent in all four limbs. i) Body was swollen up. ii) Ligature mark/placed in between chin and thyroid cartilage in the front and with the knot mark right lateral ride of mastoid region. Sub-cutaneous tissues under the ligature mark was glistening white. iii) No other obvious injury was present over the body. On dissection Skull was intact, brain was liquefied, larynx and trachea were brown-red. Both lungs softer, heart-right side contained blood, left side-empty, chest wall- N.A.D. Hyoid bone was intact. Liver, spleen and kidney all were in the process of decomposition. Stomach was empty. The posterior part of mucosal membrane congested. Small and large intestine were distended with gaseous substance. Uterus was small and non-gravid. Bladder was empty. He also stated the post mortem report was in his pen and signature, which was earlier marked as Exhibit 1, on being proved by P.W.1. All the members of the board being the P.W.1, P.W. 4 and P.W.11 opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Time elapsed since death to post - mortem examination was about 4/5 days. In his cross examination, P.W.11 has stated that it is true that they did not find any external injury except the ligature mark. 15. P.W. 12- Shyam Nandan Deo, is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated about the investigation done by him in this case. During the course of the investigation, he recorded the re-statement of the informant and the statement of other witnesses. He described the place of occurrence in detail. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body, in carbon process. The inquest report was marked as Exhibit 4 and the formal FIR was marked as Exhibit 5. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The informant handed over the panchayati paper to P.W.12, which was earlier marked as Exhibit 3. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body, in carbon process. The inquest report was marked as Exhibit 4 and the formal FIR was marked as Exhibit 5. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The informant handed over the panchayati paper to P.W.12, which was earlier marked as Exhibit 3. P.W. 12 received the post-mortem report and submitted the charge sheet in the case. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that in the final form he did not cite DW2 - Loknath Mahto and Maglu Mahto as the witnesses, because they did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W. 2 did not state before him that he saw the injuries on the belly of the dead body and also did not state about the demand of T.V. and motorcycle. P.W.3 did not state before him that one year after the marriage, in-laws of Parwati Devi used to assault her. P.W.5 did not reveal the name of any accused persons to him. P.W.7 neither stated the name of any of the accused persons nor stated anything about demand of dowry. P.W.7 did not state before P.W.12 that the deceased disclosed about any threatening given to her nor P.W.7 stated that he saw injury on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 8 also did not state before P.W.12 that there was injury on the dead body of the deceased. 16. After closure of the evidence, the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 of the accused-appellants were recorded by the learned court below wherein they denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against them and pleaded innocence. 17. From the side of the defence, D.W.1 - Parwatia Devi has stated that on the date of occurrence, the family members of the accused-appellants had gone to perform Chat rituals and the deceased was alone in the house. After returning, they saw that door of the room was locked from inside. The door was broken and the dead body of the deceased was found hanging inside the house. The deceased used to go to her paternal house frequently without seeking permission from her in-laws. The deceased did not wish to stay in her matrimonial house. The father of the deceased sent the deceased to her matrimonial house, where she was not intending to come. The deceased used to go to her paternal house frequently without seeking permission from her in-laws. The deceased did not wish to stay in her matrimonial house. The father of the deceased sent the deceased to her matrimonial house, where she was not intending to come. No demand of dowry was ever made by the appellants nor there was any occasion of assault. At the time of death of his wife, Darbari was working outside. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the accused Darbari is his nephew and there was no discomfort for the deceased in her matrimonial house. 18. D.W.2 - Basudev Prasad Verma has stated that Parwati Devi died by hanging herself on the day of Chhat. The dead body of the deceased was brought out after breaking the door. Her dead body was found hanging. Darbari was working at Raigarh district in the state of Chhatisgarh where he was working since before his marriage and the deceased was never tortured in connection with demand of T.V. or motorcycle. 19. D.W.3 - Gujar Rai, has stated that he and others broke the door and went inside the room and saw the dead body of the deceased Parwati Devi was hanging. Darbari used to work outside. He was not at his house on the date of occurrence. Parwati Devi never made any complain to D.W.3 or any of the villagers against her in-laws. His statement was recorded by the police. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he never spoke to Parwati Devi. 20. D.W.4 - Khatia Devi has stated that after returning from Chhat ghat, she saw the house of Kailash Mahto locked from inside. She saw that wife of appellant-accused Darbari was hanging and villagers brought down her dead body. The deceased used to say that she would run away in such a manner that nobody would be able to trace her. In her cross-examination, she has stated that in-laws of the deceased were not torturing her. 21. D.W. 5- Jagdish Mahto has also stated about the house of Kailash Mahto being found locked when they returned from Chhat ghat. The deceased mostly used to stay in her paternal house. Darbari was working outside. D.W. 5 was present in Panchayati. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was not willing to stay in her matrimonial house. D.W. 5- Jagdish Mahto has also stated about the house of Kailash Mahto being found locked when they returned from Chhat ghat. The deceased mostly used to stay in her paternal house. Darbari was working outside. D.W. 5 was present in Panchayati. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was not willing to stay in her matrimonial house. Perusal of Exhibit 3 reveals that it was decided by Panchs of both sides that there is a trivial dispute between both the parties and P.W.8 was directed not to bring his daughter from her matrimonial house and the accused-appellant Kailash was directed to take the deceased to his house and if the deceased or P.W.8 commits a mistake, then Kailash would intimate the villagers. 22. Learned court below after taking into consideration, the evidence on record both oral and documentary, convicted and sentenced the appellants as already indicated above. 23. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned court below passed the impugned judgment against the weight of the evidence in record ignoring the glaring discrepancies and exaggerations in the testimony of the witnesses and also improvisations in the testimony of the witnesses. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that exaggerations in the testimony of the witnesses is apparent from the testimony of P.W.12-I.O. as he has stated that the material witnesses of the case had not stated many material parts of their testimony made in court, before him and it is obvious that these witnesses have deposed about such material facts by way of exaggeration, for the first time in the court. It is further submitted that Exhibit- 3, which is the admitted document of the prosecution, do not contain any whisper about any demand of dowry or treatment of cruelty or torture meted out to the deceased Parwati Devi, though the same was recorded only about eleven days prior to the death of the deceased. It is then submitted that it is unbelievable that had there been any demand of dowry, nothing would have been whispered about the same in the said Exhibit 3. It is then submitted that it is unbelievable that had there been any demand of dowry, nothing would have been whispered about the same in the said Exhibit 3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.10 has categorically stated that as the deceased was not willing to stay in her matrimonial house and P.W.8 had forcibly sent her to her matrimonial house, hence, she committed suicide which creates doubt about the entire prosecution case and this part of the testimony which has come through the mouth of the prosecution witness, is certainly an important aspect which the learned court below did not consider. Hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that this is a fit case where the appellants be acquitted at least by giving them the benefit of doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned court below be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of all the charges. 24. Learned Addl. PP on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 being the material prosecution witnesses have categorically stated about the demand of dowry and torture meted out by the accused-appellant persons upon the deceased and there are ample evidence available in the record that the deceased committed suicide. So, it is submitted that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the fact that the accused-appellants have abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased and the evidence in the record is also sufficient to establish that the accused-appellants treated the deceased with cruelty by assaulting her in connection with the demand of T.V. and motorcycle and cash to be brought by her from her father, which ultimately, could not be fulfilled, hence, learned court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Section 306/34 and 498A/34 as well as under Section 4 of D.P. Act and this appeal being without any merit, be dismissed. 25. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and after carefully going through the evidence in the record, I find that there are several improvisations in the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution vis-a-vis their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 As already mentioned above, the witnesses have developed the demand of materials demanded from the deceased. 25. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and after carefully going through the evidence in the record, I find that there are several improvisations in the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution vis-a-vis their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 As already mentioned above, the witnesses have developed the demand of materials demanded from the deceased. Initially there was a reference to demand of only motorcycle and T.V. later on money was added to the list of demands and thereafter, instead of T.V., P.W.6 mentioned about the colour T.V. P.W. 5 has categorically stated that there was no facility of electricity in either of the villages, which creates doubt regarding the demand of any T.V. when there is no electricity in the village. Further, Exhibit 3 is also silent about any demand of dowry, which is admitted document of the prosecution and which was prepared just eleven days prior to the death of the deceased. As already indicated above, there is contradiction in the testimony of the PW8 regarding who convened the Panchayati and for which purpose the Panchayati was convened. There is contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses about presence of appellant-accused Darbari and even the deceased in the Panchayati which was held on 11.11.2001. Though some of the witnesses have stated that the appellant-accused Darbari and the deceased were present in the Panchayati yet others have stated that they were not present in the Panchayati. P.W.6 has categorically stated that none saw the entire dead body and only face of the dead body was seen by them and this coupled with the fact that the doctors, who are P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.11 having not found any external injury except ligature mark on the dead body of the deceased falsifies the case of the prosecution about the injury which was allegedly seen by prosecution witnesses and this also has shaken the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The testimony of the defence witnesses as already indicated above indicates that the suicide of the deceased was because of her being made to stay in her matrimonial house against her wish. The contents of Exhibit- 3 also points to the fact that the reason for dissatisfaction of the deceased was something other than demand of dowry. These circumstances make the allegations of demand of dowry untrustworthy. 26. The contents of Exhibit- 3 also points to the fact that the reason for dissatisfaction of the deceased was something other than demand of dowry. These circumstances make the allegations of demand of dowry untrustworthy. 26. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that in view of the contradiction and improvisations in the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses, their testimony do not inspire confidence. Hence, this is a fit case where the accused-appellants persons - Darbari Mahto, Rameshwar Mahto, Kailash Mahto, Hemia Devi and Radhiya Devi be acquitted, by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 9, Giridih in S.T. No. 390 of 2002 being not sustainable in law is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are on bail hence in view of their acquittal, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 27. Let the original Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy this Judgment. 28. In the result this appeal is allowed.