SUSTI PADA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the intervening night of 06/07.08.2011, Purnima Mandal was murdered and her dead body was set on fire in her matrimonial home. On the basis of a written report submitted by Lakhikant Mandal, Nala (Bindapathar) PS Case No. 82 of 2011 was registered against Susti Pada Mandal, Haradhan Mandal and Parul Mandal for causing dowry death of Purnima Mandal. In Sessions Case No. 24 of 2012, the learned District & Additional Session Judge- 1st, Jamtara has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants to RI for life with a fine of Rs.2000/- each under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, with a default stipulation to undergo SI for six months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that in connection to demand of a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- the accused caused harassment and torture to Purnima Mandal and finally she was done to death in her matrimonial home and to conceal the crime her dead body was covered with a gunny bag in the backyard of the house. There is no eyewitness who has seen the appellants committing murder of Purnima Mandal and to prove the charges against the appellants the prosecution has laid circumstantial evidence and, therefore, we are required to see whether the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that all the incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution were incompatible with the innocence of the appellants and one and only inference which can be drawn from the proved circumstances is that the appellants have caused dowry death of Purnima Mandal in furtherance of their common intention.

(3.) In "Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2011 12 SCC 545" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "25. It is a settled legal position that in case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain of evidence which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed the offence and none else. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the accused had committed the offence and on the basis of the aforestated material, in our opinion, it would be dangerous to convict the accused."