ADALAT MAHTO AND Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 31.5.2001 and order of sentence dated 1.6.2001 passed by Shri Arun Dhwaj Prasad Singh, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 1995, by which judgment he found both the appellants guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but only family members of the victim girl i.e. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 11 have supported the prosecution case and the doctor has found to be a case of death by hanging herself, in that view of the matter, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report given by the father of the victim girl Mathan Mahto on 3.6.1995 at 8 a.m. stating therein that his daughter Thanda Devi was married with the accused -appellant, Adalat Mahto four years back and after two years of her marriage his son -in -law Adalat mother and his mother, Sonia Mahtain used to demand Rs. 2000/ - from his daughter and they used to torture her for the same. When, the torture became excessive she went to her father's house and subsequently a Panchyati was held in the village where in presence of the Panches they agreed to keep daughter -in -law and not to torture her for demand of dowry. Then, she went to her sasural, but her mother -in -law started demanding ornaments from her in dowry and again started assaulting her about which he was informed by his brother -in -law Adalat Mahto then he went to daughter's sasural just ten days before this occurrence and asked not to torture her for ornaments as he will fulfill the money demand within three months then they agreed and gave assurance that they will not assault or torture his daughter, but just after ten days on 22.5.95 he was informed by uncle of his son -in law that his daughter is serious. About this, he accompanied his brother went to the house of the accused and found her daughter lying dead and he could gather that she was done to death by throttling her neck. He became fainted and was in condition for sometime thereafter he lodged the written report.