RADHEY SHYAM BARNWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment of conviction dtd. 26/5/2017 and order of sentence dated 7th/ 8/6/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II, FTC, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 2014, arising out of Chandrapura Police Station Case No. 155 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.1093 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000.00 each for committing the offence punishable under Ss. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, all the appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; they have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.2000.00 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1191 of 2017, namely, Radhey Shyam Barnwal and Asha Devi are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased; appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1120 of 2017, namely, Sinku @ Rakesh Kumar Barnwal and Vinay Barnwal @ Binay Kumar Barnwal @ Vinay Kumar Barnwal are two brothers-in-law of the deceased and the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1281 of 2017, namely, Birendra Kumar Barnwal is the husband of the deceased.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-convicts argued that even the informant, who is the father of the deceased and also the mother of the deceased have been declared hostile. P.W.2, who is the brother of the deceased, though, had supported the case of the prosecution, but, he cannot be relied as he stated that the deceased in the hospital before him, before P.W.3 and P.W.4 and before other relatives had given a dying declaration stating that it is these appellants, who had committed her murder, due to non-fulfilment of dowry, but the medical evidence would clearly suggest that the deceased was not in a position to speak as the area between her trachea and larynx was choked. None of the doctors of Bokaro General Hospital, who were attending her while she was admitted, were examined to prove that she was admitted in the hospital and was capable to speak. Non-examination of these doctors gives a death blow to the evidence of P.W.2. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, did not find any smell of kerosene oil, but surprisingly, the investigating officer has stated that he found match box in the bathroom and seized a can of kerosene oil and stated that kerosene oil was sprinkled and deceased was burnt to death. As per the learned counsel for the appellants, if at all the death was caused due to burn by sprinkling kerosene oil, the doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination, should have found smell of kerosene oil on the deceased. He submits that there are no other witnesses, who had supported the prosecution on the point of demand of dowry and torture. He contends that if P.W.2 is considered to be unreliable witness, then, there would be no other option but to acquit the appellants.