DILIP MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed by the appellant named above against the judgment and order dated 24/8/1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 87/1994 by Mr. Subhash Chandra Jha, Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376, I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000.00 to be paid to the victim Meena Kumari and in default thereof to undergo S.I. for two years. However, the appellant and other three accused persons were acquitted for the offence under Sections 323 and 498A, I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by Manna Ram Mahto lodged before the Court of A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat on 6/4/1991 regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 13/3/1991 and 20/3/1991 which was forwarded to the 0/C Nawadih P.S. for institution of the case, its investigation and submission of final form. On the basis of said complaint petition a case under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was instituted against the appellant and three other persons on 25/4/1991 and charge-sheet was submitted after investigation for the offence aforesaid. The learned Magistrate in seisin of the trial after recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including that of Meena Kumari, the alleged victim of ravishment by the appellant for three months found prima facie case for its commitment to the Court of Sessions and vide order dated 26/2/1994 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter charge under Section 376 was framed against the appellant and further a charge under Sections 323 and 487A, I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against all the accused persons including the appellant.

(3.) Complainant/informant Manna Ram Mahto is the father of Shanti Devi and Meena Kumari. Marriage of Shanti Devi was solem-nized with the appellant in July, 1988 as per Hindu religion and rites and Shanti Deviled her conjugal life with the appellant and during the course of her conjugal life she was blessed with a daughter and a son. It is alleged that Shanti Devi was not having good health during the period of her second pregnancy and the appellant brought Meena Kumari, the younger sister of his wife, for the care and nursing of Shanti Devi to his house from her parents house and during the stay of Meena Kumari in his house he developed illicit sexual intercourse with Meena Kumari as a result of which said Meena Kumari became pregnant. The prosecution case further is that during the illness of Shanti Devi the appellant along with his father Jaleshwar Mahto and mother Tungia Devi started treating her with cruelty and compelled her to bring Rs. 20,000/- from her parents and when the said demand was not fulfilled she was assaulted and turned out from her matrimonial home and she was also threatened that if the demand is not fulfilled she will be done to death and finding no way out Shanti Devi returned to her parents house. It is also alleged that the appellant along with all other accused persons came to the house of the complainant where they dis-closed their intention to get the marriage of Meena Kumari solemnized with the appellant and on protest by the complainant/ infor-mant and others they attempted to take away the female child of Shanti Devi and they also assaulted Shanti Devi and an attempt was also made to take away Meena Kumari with them.