RAJIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.7.2006 and 13.7.2006 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sahibganj in S.C. case No. 62 of 2005, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of which he was further directed to undergo R.I. for six months. He was further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 5.000/- in default of which to undergo R.I. for a period of fifteen days. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as would appear from the written report (Ext-1) of informant Kamleshwar Sah is that, the informant got his daughter Sangeeta Kumari @ Seema married with son of Hardeo Prasad Sah namely Rajiv Kumar and the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rituals. As per written report just few days after her daughter's marriage, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband started putting pressure upon his deceased daughter to bring dowry from her parents for which they subjected her to torture and cruelty. The informant and his eldest son had to fulfil the demands from time to time with a view to save his daughter from the torture of the accused. Just six months back before the incident father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of her daughter demanded Rs. 60,000/-. Then Rs. 55,000/- was paid by the informant's eldest son whereas he himself paid Rs. 5,000/- to the aforesaid accused persons. Despite fulfilment of such demand, behaviour of the accused did not change and their demand for more money continued. It is further said in the written information that on 4.10.2004, his daughter told him on phone to send the money immediately otherwise they would kill her. The informant told his deceased daughter on phone to take time from the members of her in-laws and the money would be arranged. On 6.10.2004 at about 1:30 a.m. the informant's elder son called him on phone and told him that he was calling from Sahibganj and he informed that Seema had been killed by her in-laws. The informant along with his wife and daughter rushed to Sahibganj and reached his Samdhi's residence on 7.10.2004 at 8 a.m. There he found the dead body of his daughter lying on the verandah of the house. When he enquired, his son told him that husband of the deceased Rajiv Kumar had informed him on phone at 9:30 p.m. regarding the ailment of Seema and on hearing the same his son immediately rushed to Sahibganj and found Seema dead in her in law's house. Lastly in the written report informant said that his daughter was killed by the accused for dowry in the night of 6.10.2004 in a well planned manner.

(3.) On the basis of written report of informant a criminal case being Sahibganj (Town) P.S. case No. 141 of 2004 under Section 304-B/34, IPC was registered against the accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 498-A/34, IPC and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial was conducted, witnesses were examined and at the conclusion of trial, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.