Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 447 (JHR)

Rajesh Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-21

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole-appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 13th April, 2007 and Order of sentence dated 16th April, 2007, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2006, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- for each of the offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report submitted by Sudhir Mahato, the father of the deceased Santra Mahatain, before the Officer-Incharge of Chandil Police Station on 22.10.2005, stating therein that his daughter Santra Mahatain was married to the accused Rajesh Mahato in the month of July, 2005. It is alleged that when his daughter came back during the Durga Pooja, she complained that her husband used to complain about the very less dowry given at the time of marriage, and she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the further demand of a cot and money. It is stated that after the Durga Pooja, the informant sent a cot to the in-laws’ place of the deceased. On 21.10.2005 at about 08:00 P.M. in the night, he was informed that his daughter Santra Mahatain was done to death, whereupon, he went to the in-laws’ place of his daughter, and found his daughter dead with blood oozing out from her nose. His son-in-law was also present there, but he did not give any reply as to how she had died. On the basis of the written report given by the informant, Chandil P.S. Case No.177 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.880 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. On the basis of the written report given by the informant, Chandil P.S. Case No.177 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.880 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and upon the accused’s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses including the I.O., and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 5. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution, who include the brother, mother and grandmother of the deceased, have supported the prosecution case and the most important witness P.W.-6 Sudhir Mahato, the informant and the father of the deceased, has also fully supported the case stating that after marriage the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of cot and money in dowry, which she had complained to the informant. He had sent a cot after the Durga Pooja, to the in-laws’ place of the deceased, but he could not give the money, due to which she was done to death. This witness has also proved his signature on the written-report submitted by him which was marked Ext.-2/2. 6. The P.W.-7 is Kalicharan Yadav, the I.O. of the case, who has proved the necessary documents in the case, and has stated about the place of occurrence. He had also found a new cot in the house on which the dead body was found by him. This witness has clearly stated in his cross-examination that except the blood in the mouth, he did not find any suspicious material at the place of occurrence. He has also stated that he had not found any injury on the dead body of the deceased, the dead body was properly dressed and no broken material was found near the dead body. 7. The evidence of P.W.-8, Dr. He has also stated that he had not found any injury on the dead body of the deceased, the dead body was properly dressed and no broken material was found near the dead body. 7. The evidence of P.W.-8, Dr. J. Sriniwash, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 22.10.2005, shows that the stomach of the deceased contained 200 ml. of some white liquid with offensive smell. He opined that the death might be caused due to some poison, for which the viscera was preserved and sent to F.S.L. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Ext.-4. In his cross-examination this witness has clearly stated that he had not found any injury on the dead body, and the dead body was well dressed. He could not say as to what type of poison was used. He has also stated that he had not received the F.S.L. report. The evidence of this witness and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-4, clearly show that there was no external or internal injury on the dead body of the deceased. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, though has argued the case at length, but she has very fairly submitted that she is confining her arguments only to the point of sentence of the appellant. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the evidences of the I.O. and the Doctor clearly show that there was no external or internal injury on the dead body of the deceased, and it was a case of suspected poisoning, which could be due to suicide committed by the deceased herself. No F.S.L. report has been proved in the case. In that view of the matter, it is submitted by the learned counsel, that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court below for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., R.I. for life with fine, is very excessive. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it was a fit case in which the appellant ought to have been given the lesser punishment provided under law, by the Trial Court below. 9. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it was a fit case in which the appellant ought to have been given the lesser punishment provided under law, by the Trial Court below. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, and has submitted that the evidence of the witnesses clearly show that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry, and the death was caused within five months of the marriage, as the marriage had taken place in the month of May, 2005, and the occurrence is of the month of October, 2005. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the State that even though no external or internal injury was found on the deceased and even if it is presumed that the deceased had herself committed suicide by consuming poison, but the fact remains that the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out even in such circumstance. Learned counsel for the State accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 10. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that though there is allegation against the appellant to have subjected his wife to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry, which fact is fully supported by the material witnesses, including P.W.-6 Sudhir Mahato, the informant and the father of the deceased, but the fact remains that there was no external or internal injury on the dead body of the deceased, meaning thereby, that there is nothing on the record to prove the fact that the deceased was assaulted to death. The I.O. has clearly stated in his evidence that the dead body was found lying on the cot and it was well dressed and no broken material was there. He did not find any suspicious circumstance or material at the place of occurrence. Even the evidence of P.W.-8 Dr. J. Sriniwash and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-4, clearly show that there was no external or internal injury on the dead body of the deceased, and the dead body was well dressed. 11. He did not find any suspicious circumstance or material at the place of occurrence. Even the evidence of P.W.-8 Dr. J. Sriniwash and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-4, clearly show that there was no external or internal injury on the dead body of the deceased, and the dead body was well dressed. 11. In view of the fact that there is nothing on the record to prove the fact that the death of the deceased was due to any assault made by the accused, we are of the considered view that in the facts of this case, the sentence of R.I. for life with fine, was not at all warranted for the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellant deserved to be given lesser punishment, as provided in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. We are informed that the appellant is in custody since October, 2005 itself, and he has remained in custody for more than 12 years. In that view of the matter, the ends of the justice would be met, if the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him, for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him for the offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 12. For the foregoing discussions, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 13.04.2007, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2006, convicting the appellant Rajesh Mahto, for the offences under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which, we hereby, affirm. However, the Order of sentence dated 16.04.2007, passed by the Trial Court below, is hereby, modified to the extent that for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is sentenced to R.I. for the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant Rajesh Mahto, who is in custody, is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 13. This appeal is accordingly, allowed in part. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy this Judgment.