1
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 298 of 2002
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2002 passed
by Shri Chandra Prakash Asthana, learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag
in Sessions Trial Case No. 172 of 1995.)
--------------
1. Chhotan Mahto
2. Nuni Devi
3. Rijho Mahto
4. Dhaneshwari Devi
5. Baiju Mahto
6. Khannu Prasad @ Khannu Mahto ………
Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ………. Opposite Party
—————
For the Appellants : M/S. Deepak Kumar, Manoj Kumar,
Sanjay Pandey, Advocates
For the State : Mr. D.K. Prasad, A.P.P.
--------------
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
By court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the
State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 26.04.2002 passed by Shri Chandra Prakash Asthana, learned
9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial Case No. 172 of
1995, by which judgment, he found the appellants guilty for the offence under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced appellant no.1, Chhotan
Mahto, the husband of victim to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
and appellant nos.2, 3 and 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and
appellant nos.5 and 6 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
However, he has acquitted the appellants from the charges under Sections
304B/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it will appear
from the evidences of witnesses especially P.W.1, Hemlal Mahto, P.W.2,
Dhania Devi and other witnesses that all the brothers of appellant no.1, Chhotan
Mahto were living separately and there is no question that they have demanded
2
any dowry from the father of the deceased. Moreover, prosecution witnesses
P.W.5, Jageshwar Prasad, P.W.6, Jhallu Mahto and P.W.7, Tuklal Mahto have
subsequently stated that dowry was being demanded by only Chhotan Mahto
and there is no allegation of demand of dowry against the other appellants.
He has further submitted that the father of appellant no.1, Rijho Mahto,
who was aged about 83 years at the time of judgment, is now dead, and as
such, a lenient view may be taken while passing the judgment.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
and submitted that the trial court has already taken a lenient view and
sentenced three years rigorous imprisonment only for appellant no.1 under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on
record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of F.I.R. given
by the informant, P.W.8, Uttim Mahto before police stating therein that his
daughter, Kunti Devi was married with the accused-appellant, Chhotan Mahto
about seven years back and after sometimes of marriage, the husband,
Chhotan Mahto and his family members started demanding Rs.10,000/-. Since,
the informant was a poor man, he could not fulfil the demand of Rs.10,000/-,
due to which, his daughter used to tortured and assaulted by the family
members. He stated that about one and a half months back, after giving birth to
a son, when she came to her father’s house due to her being tortured, her
husband came to his ‘sasural’ after fifteen days and forced Kunti Devi to go with
him and today i.e. on 31.08.1994, he heard that she has died. The informant
went to the ‘sasural’ of victim and saw the dead body lying outside the well of
Hemlal Mahto. He alleged that his daughter was burnt to death for not providing
dowry demand and then she was thrown in the well.
6. On the basis of said fardbeyan, police registered a case for the offence
under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation
submitted charge sheet under Sections 302, 201 and 304B of the Indian Penal
Code.
7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned
C.J.M. after taking cognizance, committed the case to the court of Sessions and
lastly the case was tried by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh and he
found the appellants guilty under aforesaid sections as stated above and found
them guilty and convicted them thereunder.
8. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined ten
witnesses.
P.W.1 is Hemlal Mahto.
3
P.W.2 is Dhania Devi.
P.W.3 is Ziria Devi.
P.W.4 is Shanti Devi.
P.W.5 is Jageshwar Prasad.
P.W.6 is Jhallu Mahto.
P.W.7 is Tuklal Mahto.
P.W.8 is Uttim Mahto.
P.W.9 is Jay Brat Roy, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem
examination of the dead body.
P.W.10 is Santosh Kumar Singh, I.O of the case.
9. It appears from the evidences of P.W.1, Hemlal Mahto, from whose well,
the dead body was recovered, only stated that the dead body was recovered
about 7-8 A.M. from the well belonging to him. The dead body was brought out.
He stated that Kunti Devi was married about ten years back and she had good
relations with her in-laws.
10. P.W.2, Dhaniya Devi only stated that the dead body was recovered from
the well. She also stated that there was no fight in the house of deceased Kunti
Devi.
P.W.3, Ziria Devi was declared hostile and nothing was asked from her.
P.W.4, Shanti Devi was also declared hostile and she stated nothing.
11. P.W.5, Jageshwar Prasad, P.W.6, Jhallu Mahto, P.W.7, Tuklal Mahto and
P.W.8, Uttim Mahto have tried to support the prosecution case.
P.W.5, Jageshwar Prasad stated that after the marriage, Kunti Devi was
staying with her husband, but there was a demand of Rs.10,000/- by the
accused-appellants i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and they
used to torture the victim girl. He also stated that due to non-payment of dowry,
she was burnt to death and thrown in the well.
P.W.6, Jhallu Mahto stated the same thing, but at Para 18 of his cross
examination, he stated that only accused Chhotan Mahto used to demand
dowry from the father of Kunti Devi.
P.W.7, Tuklal Mahto also stated that there was a general demand of
dowry and torture on Kunti Devi, but he also stated at para 2 of his examination
that the accused Chhotan Mahto, in his presence, demanded Rs.10, 000/- from
the father of Kunti Devi.
12. P.W.8, Uttim Mahto, the informant also stated that all the accused
persons used to torture his daughter for non-payment of dowry demanded by
the accused persons. He proved his statement as given in the F.I.R. and his
signature as Ext.1. At para 17, he stated that accused Baiju works as a ‘Raj
4
Mistri’ and Khannu does the work of ‘compounder’. At para 22, he stated that he
cannot say the date and time when the money was demanded.
13. P.W.9, Dr. Jai Brat Roy, who conducted the postmortem examination on
the dead body of the deceased, found no external and internal injuries and he
stated that she died due to Asphyxia caused by drowning.
P.W.10, Santosh Kumar Singh, the I.O. has proved the fardbeyan and
injury report as Ext.2. He also proved the postmortem report and other
documents.
14. Thus, after hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences
on record, I find that there was a general allegation of demand of dowry against
appellant nos. 2 to 6. The prosecution witnesses have made allegations that
the demand of money was especially by appellant no.1, Chhotan Mahto. Since,
there was no specific date and time of demand of dowry or allegations and
P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that other appellants were living separately at that
time and P.W.7 has also admitted at para 9 that accused Khannu Mahto works
in Madhya Pradesh and Baiju Mahto works in Ranchi, in that view of the matter,
it seems that the demand of money i.e. Rs.10, 000/- was only against appellant
no.1, Chhotan Mahto.
15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Chhotan Mahto is dismissed and he has
already served out the sentence and released by the trial court and the other
appellants i.e. appellant nos. 2 to 6 namely Nuni Devi, Rijho Mahto,
Dhaneshwari Devi, Baiju Mahto and Khannu Prasad @ Khannu Mahto are
acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
16. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part.
[Pradeep Kumar, J.]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 11th March, 2010
R.K./NAFR