BINDU SAO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 1.3.2001 and order of sentence dated 2.3.2001 in S.T. No. 656 of 1998 passed by the learned, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj whereby the above named appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as also section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, he is convicted under both the sections, though he is acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. It is observed that if any default of payment of fine is made, he shall undergo R.I six months under section 498A I.P.C. It was further observed that the convict appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 5000/- and if any default of payment of fine is made, he shall further undergo six month R.I under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Both the sentences have been ordered to run consecutively. It is further directed that fine amount, if paid, shall be given to the victim lady.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is, as per Fardbeyan lodged by one Basudeo Sao before Meral Police Station on 2.11.1997, who is the informant in this case, recorded under sections 364/498A of the Indian Penal Code as also under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the Sub-Inspector of Meral Police station leading to Dhurki P.S. Case No. 48 of 1997 dated 03.11.1997 that about seven years ago, the informant's daughter, namely Jaswanti Devi was married to Bindu Sao. After two years of the marriage, Jaswanti Devi had gone to her Sasural, where after four months Bindu Sao, his parents and brother started demanding 12,000/-, one cow and one bicycle but the same was not fulfilled by the informant due to poverty. It is further alleged that since dowry was not given in the month of Baisakh, the members of in-laws family, after assaulting Jaswanti Devi, had thrown her in Bulka Khardaha Jungle, but she somehow survived and was revived and had stayed in the house of Khatoona Bibi, who subsequently reached Jaswanti Devi to her Naihar at 7 in the morning. Then Bindu Sao's elder brother Vijoy Sao had come and seen her and gone away. After six months a Panchayati was held, and thereafter Jaswanti Devi had gone to her Sasural. It is further alleged that on 30.10.1997 Bidai was performed but again the demand was made for cycle and money. Then in the last week of the said month Vijay Sao, elder brother of Bindu Sao, Vijoy Sao came to search for Jaswanti Devi in her Naihar then the informant had got suspicion and questioned him unsuccessfully and also started searching her, but could not find her. The informant suspected that Bindu Sao and Ramjee Sao who is his friend and the members of in-laws family might have abducted and committed murder of Jaswanti Devi for dowry demands, as such, the F.I.R was lodged.

(3.) The prosecution has examined altogether 17 witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Manu Singh, P.W. 2 Basudeo Sao, P.W.3 Ramdhani Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W. 4, Ramgati Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W.5 Upendra Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W.6 Bartu Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W.7 Bishundhari Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W.8 Amerika Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W.9 Akalu Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W. 10, Dasarath Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W.11 Keshwar Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W. 12 Harihar Sao, who has been declared hostile, P.W. 13 Mandip Singh who has been declared hostile, P.W. 14 Jagdish Singh, P.W. 15 Suman Sao, P.W. 16 Ramji Sao and P.W.17 Mujibullah Khan, who is the formal witness.