TEKLAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the three appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30-5-2001 and 31-5- 2001 respectively passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case lies in a narrow compass as alleged that Mungia Devi daughter of the informant was married with Teklal Mahto, appellant No. 1 in the year 1994 and after marriage, the in-laws of Mungia Devi started torturing her on the ground that she had brought ghost from her Naihar resulting the family of the appellants has badly been disturbed. Mungia Devi was suffering from boil (abscess), which was believed to be Leprosy by her in-laws, and she was assaulted for this reason by them and Mungia Devi made complaint about torture to the members of her Naihar. It has further been alleged that in the year 1997, there was a Panchayat in which it was decided that the informant was to cure his daughter and the informant started her treatment at Dhanbad and thereafter she started living in her Sosural. In the year 1997 Arun Mahto son of the informant had brought his sister to the parents house, where she lived for about one year. On 2-10-1998 Bhuneshwar Mahto, younger brother of the husband of Mungia Devi and Masusa of the husband of Mungia Devi, namely, Kula Mahto took away Mungia Devi to her in laws house on Bidagri. In the evening of 25-10-1998 at about 7 P. M. when the informant was sitting in his courtyard, his nephew Anil enquired the whereabouts of Mungia Devi on which the informant replied that she is in Sasural. Anil asked him to open the door and when the informant came out, he found Anil Mahto and Shankar Mahto keeping Mungia Devi on their lap. Thereafter Mungia Devi was brought to the courtyard where Mungia Devi (deceased) told them to save her life as her father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar and husband assaulted and administered poison forcibly resulting which she would not survive. She also asked for water. The informant along with others went to a Doctor and when they were coming back with Doctor, he was informed by Etwari Mahto and Sita Ram Mahto that Mungia Devi died and there was no need in taking the Doctor there. Thereafter the informant came to the house and found Mungia Devi dead.

(3.) On the basis of the fard beyan, a first information report was lodged against the appellants under Sections 328, 302, 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet. All the accused persons appeared before the Trial Court and, accordingly, charge under Sections 328/34, 302/ 34.and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. The witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution. The defence has also examined witnesses. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above, hence, this appeal.