KRISHNA DATTA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 19.8.1997 passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 96/90. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants, Krishna Datta Mahto and Ram Lakhan Mahto under Sections 302/ 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and three years respectively. He also convicted all the 10 appellants under Section 201,I.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The sentences of the appellants, Krishna Datta Mahto and Ram Lakhan Mahto, however, were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) On 23.3.1988 at about 7.30 a.m., the informant, Mukti Kumar Singh, P.W. 9, of village Ganghaur, P.S. Babubarahi, District Madhubani lodged FIR (Ext. No. 5) at Khajauli Police Station, District Madhubani, alleging inter alia that his younger sister, Lila Devi, was married with the appellant, Krishna Datta Mahto, son of the appellant, Ram Lakhan Mahto, of village Kanhauli, P.S. Khajauli, District Madhubani on 25.5.1986. Her second marriage, i.e., Gouna was performed in January, 1987 and she went to her Sasural house. After marriage the appellant, Krishna Datta Mahto and his family members made demand of Rs. 15,000/- and threatened to desert Lila Devi and kill her in case of non-fulfilment of the demand. In August, 1987 she was assaulted and turned out of her Sasural house and she came to her parents' house. In October, 1987, a panchayatee was held at the house of the informant in presence of the appellant, Ram Lakhan Mahto and many villagers. In pursuance of the panchayatee the Vidagari of Lila Devi was performed and thereafter when the informant went to see her at her Sasural house he was not allowed to see by his brother-in-law, the appellant and other family members. On 22.3.1988, a person of Kanhauli village came to the house of the informant and informed that his sister, Lila Devi was killed and her dead body was burnt. On this information, the informant, went to Kanhauli Tola Turkaha village and came to know that due to non-satisfaction of dowry demand on 22.3.1988 at about 11/12 O'clock get appellant, Krishna Datta Mahto and his father, Ram Lakhan Mahto, killed his sister by pressing lathi on her neck. After committing her murder, the dead body of Lila Devi, was burnt in the bamboo-clumps standing in front of the house of the appellant to screen themselves from legal punishment

(3.) On the basis of the statement of the informant, Mukti Kumar Singh, P.W. 9, a case was registered under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code against the two accused-appellants, Krishna Datta Mahto and his father, Ram Lakhan Mahto and investigation followed. The investigation of the case culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet against both the accused-appellants under Sections 304-B, 398-A and 201 /34 of the Indian Penal Code. On commitment of their case to the Court of Session they were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Madhubani. Later on during trial the remaining 8 accused-appellants were also added to face trial along with already trial facing two accused-appellants. The appellants, Krishna Datta Mahto and Ram Lakhan Mahto, were charged under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants, Jhameli Mahto and Baleshwar Mahto, were charged under Sections 304-B/107 of the Indian Penal Code. All the 10 accused-appellants were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them were further charged under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Their trial ultimately ended in their conviction and sentence as indicated above.