MANGAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No body appears on behalf of the appellants on repeated call. Than, on the request of the Court Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate, argued the case as amicus curie on behalf of the appellants.

(2.) The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.2.2000 and order of sentence dated 16.2.2000 passed by Sri Dhruv Narayan Upadhyay, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 408 of 1995, by which judgment he found the appellant no.1, Mangar Mahto guilty under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and he was in custody since 19.10.95 to 17.3.97. He was sentenced to period already undergone by him. The learned trial court found the appellant no.2, Nand Lal Mahto guilty under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default further to undergo S.I. for 3 months. He also found appellant no.2, Nand Lal Mahto guilty under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default further to undergo S.I. for one month. The learned trial court also found the appellant no.3, Himiya Devi guilty under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and considering her age and being a lady the court sentenced her to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-and in default further to undergo 3 months S.I. He further found her guilty under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for 1 year and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default further to undergo 1 month. The trial court is directed all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants as amicus curie that although the witnesses have tried to say that the date of occurrence itself i.e. on 27.7.1995, the informant and the witnesses had gone to the place of occurrence i.e. in-laws house of the victim Kaushilya Devi for her Bidai and in presence of them she was assaulted by the accused persons, but since no F.I.R. of any such assault was lodged by them. It is difficult to believe that immediately before her death she was subjected to cruelty or demand of dowry and as such their convictions under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, is bad in law and only fit to be set aside.