KISHUN SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Death Reference and the connected Criminal Appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dtd. 4/3/2021 and order of sentence dtd. 25/3/2021 in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2018 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma convicted the appellants under Sec. 302/34, 201/511 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to death with fine of Rs.20,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine, further SI for one year for the charge under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for two years with a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each, and in default of payment of fine, further SI for 3 months for the charge under Sec. 201/511 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Based on the circumstantial evidence these appellants have been convicted. The trial Court failed to take into consideration the deposition of the defence witnesses and also of PW2 who had stated that the deceased had committed suicide. He argued that the appellants Sitaram Sao and Parwati Devi who are the uncle and aunt of the deceased do not reside with them, thus there are no material to suggest that they were involved in the occurrence. In absence of any direct evidence, no adverse inference could have been drawn against these appellants of committing murder of the deceased. He contended that only considering that this is an honour killing by the family members of the deceased they have been convicted. The trial Court also failed to take into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who stated that because of the torture meted out by the husband of the deceased, she had committed suicide.

(3.) The learned counsel for the State submits that the evidence is consistent in this case that daughter of the appellant nos. 1 and 3 eloped with PW7 Pradeep Sharma and they married. When they returned to the village the girl was taken by her parents and her uncle and aunt who are the appellants. A panchayati was supposed to be held, but before that, the girl died. The fact that the girl died was not disclosed to anyone. The dead body surreptitiously was taken to the Burning Ghat and the family members were trying to burn the dead body, thereby destroying the evidence, but the police intervened and recovered the dead body. The death is homicidal and the doctor opined that the same is due to asphyxia and found manual pressure mark on neck. It is his contention that this is an honour killing at the instance of these appellants thus the trial Court has correctly convicted them under Sec. 302, 201/511 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. So far sentence is concerned he submits that a young girl was done to death by her parents only to maintain their honour thus the trial Court has correctly imposed capital punishment.