DATA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 11th January, 2001 passed by the Session Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 157 of 1999 convicting the appellants in both the appeals under Section 304 -B, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant Dalo Mahto to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and appellants Kisto Mahato and Chandrika Devi to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each.

(2.) INFORMANT Govardhan Mahto (PW -1), brother of the deceased, Murli Devi, gave a fardbeyan on 16.10.1998 at 19.30 hours regarding the occurrence which took place at 10.00 hours on the same day. He stated in a fardbeyan that his younger sister Murli Devi was married with appellant -Dalo Mahto about two years back as per Hindu rites. As per his capacity, he gave dowry. After the marriage, his sister returned after one day. When 'Gauna ' was performed after one year of the marriage, she went to her matrimonial home. There was no problem for about two months.Thereafter, the appellants, in both the appeals, started torturing her. Six months prior to the lodging of FIR, she was assaulted badly and burnt by iron rod at one or two places. The reason for the torture was that appellant Dalo Mahto and his mother Chandrika Devi were demanding a cow which he could not give due to poverty. Therefore, he got her sister back about six months prior to the occurrence. Then appellant Dalo Mahto along with some villagers came to him and begged apology. Informant sent her sister with Dalo Mahto. The demand for cow continued. The informant further stated that at about 10 a.m., younger brother of Dalo Mahto came to him and informed that the sister of the informant was ill and was being treated. On this, informant reached her sasural at about 11 a.m. and found her sister dead. On inquiry, he knew that she died in the last night itself.

(3.) PW -1 (informant) has stated, interalia, that after marriage, her sister lived with her husband. After four months of marriage, he went to take her back but accused persons did not send her. Her husband Dalo Mahto demanded a she -calf in dowry. When the informant agreed, appellant Dalo Mahto allowed her sister to return. After return, she showed burn injuries on her hand caused by Dalo Mahto and his mother. She declined to go back to her matrimonial home. Dalo Mahto came to take her back after four months. She refused to go with him, he returned back. After 15 days, father of Dalo Mahto (appellant Kisto Mahato) came with villagers and after Panchayti took his sister back. After three months, he brought her back on the occasion of marriage. After two months, her husband Dalo Mahto took her back. Two months thereafter, he went to take her back but her husband did not send her saying that till she -calf is given in dowry, she will not be sent back. The informant returned to his house. Thereafter, he received information about the illness of her sister and when he went to see her, she was found dead. In the cross -examination, he said that he did not inform the police about the burn injuries caused to her and the same was not treated. He further said that he saw injuries on right 'Kanpati ' and neck of the deceased. He further said that the appellants Kisto Mahto and Chandrika lived separately from Dalo Mahto. PW -2 -Jira Devi is mother of the deceased. She stated about the demand of cow. She further said that she saw the said injuries. PW -5, Dr. M.A. Sattar is the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination on the next day i.e. 17.10.1998. He found the age of the deceased as 16 years. He did not find any external or internal injury. As per the viscera report (Ext. -6) aluminum phosphide, commercially known as celfos which is a severe gastro - intestinal irritant and which is used as grain preservative and which is highly poisonous, was found in the viscera. PW -6 Tetu Mahto is uncle of the deceased. He has said that she told him about the dowry torture when she came last to her parent 'shouse. PW -9 -Sobha Lal Patewa is the Investigating Officer. PW -10 is the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, who got the viscera analyzed. Other PWs are not relevant.