RABINDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants have preferred these appeals against the Judgment of Conviction dtd. 19/9/2002 and Order of Sentence dtd. 21/9/2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 1996, whereby the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A, 304B of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and appellant-Rabindra Kumar @ Pinku has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Sec. 304B of IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000.00 under Sec. 498A of IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 3 of D.P. Act and six months rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 4 of D.P. Act. Further, appellant- Mandeshwari Devi has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sec. 304B of IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 498A of IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 3 of D.P. Act and six months rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 4 of D.P. Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals, submits that there is no material to convict the appellants for committing offence under Sec. 304B of IPC. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the fundamental ingredient of the offence that the death, was caused otherwise than in normal circumstances or by burn injury. He further submits that there is no evidence to suggest that the deceased was ever tortured mentally or physically which can attract Sec. 498A of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. She submits that within seven years of marriage, death had occurred and the death is unnatural that too in the house of these appellants. There is allegation that there was demand for dowry and the deceased was being harassed in view of said demand. Thus, all the ingredients of Sec. 304B of IPC have been established by the prosecution. The accused persons have failed to discharge their onus under Sec. 113B of the Evidence Act. Thus, there is legal presumption against these appellants that they had committed dowry death.