SANTOSH PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2000 passed by Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West in Sessions Trial No. 369 of 1996, by which judgment, he found all the four appellants guilty for the offence under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that although there is evidence that the victim lady, Meena Kumari died in her sasural and there is an allegation of torture for dowry, but it has clearly come in the F.I.R. as also in the evidence of the informant, P.W.4 that she had came to her sasural just before her death on 02.03.1996 along with her husband and her child and she had made complaint that she is being tortured and her husband and in-laws are demanding T.V., motorcycle and golden chain as dowry. They stayed there for one day and left the house on 03.03.1996. So, the main allegation of demand of dowry and torture was against the husband and the old parents i.e. the appellant no.4, Bhaskar Pradhan, father-in-law, who was aged about 65 years on the date of judgment i.e. on April, 2000 and appellant no.3, Smt. Rambha @ Rama Pradhan, mother-in-law, who was aged about 60 years on the date of judgment, are not directly named as the persons who were demanding dowry and torturing the victim lady, and as such, a compassionate view may be taken against the two appellants.