PURAN MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the sole appellant and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2007 and order of sentence dated 06.09.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No-II, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.406 of 2005, whereby, the sole accused has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the sole accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the said offence.

(3.) The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of Baghmara (Mahuda) Police Station, by the informant Dhiren Mahato, who is the brother of the deceased lady. The sole accused is the husband of the deceased, and it is stated in the written report that they were married about 20 years ago and they had a daughter who was also married about 1' years ago. The informant, Dhiren Mahato was living with his sister and brother-in-law due to poverty. On 07.06.2005, after taking his meal, he slept in the courtyard of the house in the night at about 10.00 p.m., and his sister Mando Devi and the brother-in-law Puran Mahato slept in their room. There was rain in the night and he went into the room. At about 3:00 a.m., in the morning, he woke up and he went into the room of his sister and brother-in-law to wake them up. He found that only his sister was sleeping on one side of the bed and the brother-in-law was not there. He thought that his sister was sleeping, and he tried to awake her up, but when she did not get up, he raised alarm, whereupon some persons reached there and they found that his sister had died. It was apparent from the dead body that she was strangulated to death and there were nail marks on the neck of his sister. His brother-in-law was nowhere to be found. It is alleged in the written report that the accused wanted to re-marry due to the fact that they had no male child, which was being opposed by the wife, for which, it is alleged that the husband had killed his wife by strangulating her, in which, his brother, Muchi Ram Mahato and mother Ramni Devi had also supported. On the basis of the written report, Baghmara (Mahuda) P.S Case No. 133 of 2005, corresponding to G.R No. 1842 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case only against the sole accused.