RAMESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st, Fast Track Court, Giridih, Session Case No. 65 of 1996, whereby he has convicted the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two and half years.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief as appears from the Fardbeyan dated 27.4.95 of the informant Ishwar Mahto is that the informant has married his daughter Hemiapati with Basudeo Yadav according to Hindu rites and custom and after few days of marriage, the Sasural people started to torture her for demand of dowry. Further case of the prosecution is that the informant after getting information of torture, went to the Sasural of his daughter and gave further 5,000/- rupees in dowry so that they will keep his daughter properly but the Sasural people continued torturing Hemiapati Devi. On 20.4.95 when the informant again went to the Sasural of his daughter, he found some swelling in the mouth and cheek of his daughter and his daughter was weeping and told him that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, Dewar and Nand assaulted her by putting Lathi in her mouth and she requested her father to take her to his house otherwise she will be killed by them. Next day the informant returned to his house and went to Nawadih again on 22.4.95 along with his village people and convened a panchayati there where the informant told them before Panchayat that he will take back his daughter but the in-laws of his daughter assured them before the Panchayat that they will keep her in proper way and promised not to quarrel with her in future and also assured them for her medical treatment for the injury received by her. The informant and his village people returned to their village. On 27.4.95 at about 12.00 noon a man came to the informant and informed him that his daughter has died. The informant immediately went to Nawadih and found his daughter lying dead on a cot in a Mango orchard towards south of their village and foam was coming out from her nose and mouth from which the informant have understood that the Sasural people of his daughter had killed her after administering poison. The informant has further stated in his fardbeyan that his son-in-law resides at Bagmara and this occurrence has been taken place in his absence. The informant has believed that Bandhu Mahto (father-in-law), Ramesh Yadav (brother-in-law), Niriya Devi (mother-in-law), Kushmi Kumari (Sister-in-law) of his daughter after torturing her and assaulting her for demand of dowry, killed her by administering poison. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan, a case has been lodged and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 498-A and 304B I.P.C. against Bandhu Yadav, Ramesh Yadav and Niriya Devi. During the trial, accused Bandhu Yadav died as such the proceeding against him was dropped.

(3.) The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. Defence has not examined any witness. The defence of the accused persons is total denial of the charges. Further defence is that the accused persons had never tortured or assaulted the victim nor they had demanded any dowry. They have been falsely implicated in this case.