UMESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Court Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dtd. 9/1/2003 and order of sentence dtd. 10/1/2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.617 of 1999, arising out of Ramgarh Police Station Case No.91 of 1999 [G.R. No. 612 of 1999], whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for offences under Ss. 302/201, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code; and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to put forth any material or evidence before the Trial Court to bring home the charges against the appellant. He further submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case is based on suspicion and presumption. There is possibility that the deceased might have committed suicide. It is further submitted that the place where the body of the deceased was found is a populated area but no one saw any person committing the offence or throwing the body there. He submits that there was no earlier complaint for the demand of dowry and torture before the competent authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant with cogent evidence and sufficient materials and the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. He submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that there was demand of dowry and torture. He further submits that aPanchayat meeting was held on 26/3/1999 to settle the dispute of dowry and torture in which the appellant was directed not to torture or demand dowry, thereafter within one month dead body of the deceased was found. He further submits that it is the appellant who has committed the murder and thrown the body on the railway track to give an impression of suicide. He lastly submits that no blood stains were found on the railway track which establishes that this case is not of suicide.