DHANESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard M/s Suchitra Pandey, learned counsel, appointed by the Court for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 6th of March, 1992 and Order of sentence dated 13th of March, 1992, passed by learned Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1991, whereby, the appellants, who are the husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased, have been found guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have also found guilty for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been convicted for the same. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offences under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and those appellants, who have been found guilty for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, have also been sentenced to R.I. for 3 years each for that offence. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) The prosecution story as detailed in the F.I.R., lodged on 15.4.1980 by Jeewan Mahto, who is the father of the deceased, is that his daughter Nilmani Devi was married to Dhaneshwar Mahto, about 5 years prior to the occurrence, and she was killed by the accused persons for demand of dowry and the dead body was buried at the cremation place near one Kanchi river. The deceased had also a daughter, out of the wedlock, aged about 2 years. He has stated in the F.I.R. that soon after the marriage, all the accused persons were demanding money and due to non-fulfilment of money, they used to send his daughter to her parents' place and after getting the money, they used to keep her for some days, thereafter the atrocities for demand of money again used to start on her. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that some days prior to the occurrence, there was some demand of money for purchase of agricultural land, which he could not give and again on 11.4.1989, there was same demand of money by his son-in-law, which also could not be met due to the fact that informant had to marry his second daughter. On the next day, he was informed by one Kashinath Mahto that his daughter had died and the accused persons were taking the dead body to bury it by the side of Kanchi river. He was also informed that while the accused persons were taking the dead body on a cot and some of them were having spade with them, Kashinath Mahto asked them about the dead body, whereupon they informed that the dead body was of the wife of Dhaneshwar Mahto, who had died due to pain in stomach. He was not allowed to see the dead body, but he could also see the blood dropping from the dead body and the accused persons rushed towards Kanchi river. As Kashinath Mahto is the brother-in-law of the informant, he came and informed him about the occurrence. The informant has also stated that he was informed that on 10.4.1989, his daughter was assaulted by the accused persons and they also strangulated her to death. The informant claimed that his daughter was killed due to non-fulfilment of the demand of money by the accused appellants and her dead body was buried near the Kanchi river. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant Jeewan Mahto, Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 22 of 1989 corresponding to G.R. No. 170 of 1989 was instituted for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police has submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and the other co-accused persons, who were also put to trial. It may be stated that out of the eight accused persons, who were put to trial, one Abhiram Mahto was acquitted after trial, two accused persons died and one has not preferred any appeal. Remaining four convicted accused persons have preferred this appeal.