LAWS(JHAR)-2017-2-12

BABU LAL RAM @ PURNA KHURNA RAM, S/O JETHU RAM, R/O BIGAN, PSPIPARWAR, DISTT.CHATRA, JHARKHAND Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On February 27, 2017
Babu Lal Ram @ Purna Khurna Ram, S/O Jethu Ram, R/O Bigan, Pspiparwar, Distt.Chatra, Jharkhand Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2008 and 03.07.2008 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chatra in connection with Session Trial No. 23 of 2007, corresponding to Piparwar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2005, whereby and where under the present appellant namely, Babu Lal Ram @ Purna Khurna Ram having been found guilty of charges under Sections 498 A & 304 B of Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec. 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 03 years for the offence under Sec. 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. However, it was observed that both the sentences will run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the informant (PW5), i.e. the father of the deceased, gave a fardbeyan on 01.12005 stating therein that six years before he performed marriage of his daughter Shanti Devi (deceased) with the present appellant and also expended some money. After sometime of the marriage, the accused persons, i.e. present appellant, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law started assaulting and torturing his daughter and also demanded a motorcycle. Thereafter, the 2 deceased was thrown out of their house and then she came to her parental house and stayed there for more than a year and, thereafter, few days before the occurrence, the appellant took his daughter to his house and on 01.12005 one Rajendra Ram came and informed him about killing of his daughter by strangulation with rope and then he went there and saw the dead body of his daughter and lodged the case.

(3.) The case of the defence is complete denial of his involvement and he specifically stated that at the time of occurrence he was not present.