DHANANJAI PATAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Dhananjai Patar was put on trial to face charges under Section 304 -B/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with one Chand Patar (since acquitted) on the allegation that they in furtherance of their common intention committed dowry death of Sushila Devi. On being tried learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti while acquitting Chand Patar convicted the appellant under Section 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code and consequently sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that Sushila Devi, daughter of the informant Nagendra Patar (PW 2) was married to the appellant Dhananjai Patar in the year 1993. After the marriage Sushila Devi stayed in her matrimonial home for about a week and during that period when the informant (PW 2) came to her daughters matrimonial home he could know that the appellant had gone some where along with one girl and, therefore, he brought his daughter to his house. After one and half year the appellant came to his place and wished to take Sushila Devi with him and the appellant was allowed to take her with him. After some days his daughter informed him that this appellant as well as her father -in -law (other accused) have been asking repeatedly for watch and cycle as dowry and in order to get the demand fulfilled, she is being subjected to assault. Further case is that on 16.4.1999 this appellant came to the house of the informant and told him that there had been some altercation with Sushila Devi, and as such, she has left home. Subsequently on 18.4.1999 at 9 a.m. one Chandramohan Patar (not examined) came and informed to the informant that Sushila Devi has consumed some poison. On getting this information the informant came to his daughters place and saw her daughter in senseless condition and also saw froth coming out of her mouth. Subsequently, she breathed her last.

(3.) AFTER completion of investigation, police submitted charge -sheet against this appellant as well as Chand Patar and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed to which the appellant and other accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.