PRADEEP KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred these appeals against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dtd. 23/4/2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2013, whereby the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Pradeep Kumar Das has further been held guilty for offence punishable under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine of Rs.2,000.00 for offence under Ss. 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Pradeep Kumar Das has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine of Rs.2,000.00 for offence under Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Appellant Pradeep Kumar Das in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 598 of 2014 is the husband of the deceased whereas, the appellants, namely, Nand Lal Das and Dulali Devi, in Cr. Appeal No.366 of 2014 are father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are no materials to convict these appellants. Charge has been framed under Ss. 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code, but the prosecution has failed to prove that these appellants have caused death of the deceased. As per the prosecution case, the same is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence, but none of the circumstances have been proved by the prosecution, neither the chain of circumstances was complete, thus, these appellants' conviction is bad. As per him the only ground in this case for convicting the appellants is suspicion, that some mobile call was received by the deceased, before the deceased left home, and recovery of slipper from the place of occurrence. These two circumstances are too weak circumstances to convict the appellants.