1
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 323 of 2001
Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2001
passed in S.T. No. 77 of 2000 by Sri Dhananjay Prasad Singh, Sessions Judge,
Dumka.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
----
Kaleshwar Tatwa @Katki Tatwa .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent (State) : Mr. A. B. Mahto, A.P.P.
-------
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
----
By Court: Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the state.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 03.05.2001 passed in S.T. No. 77 of 2000 by Sri Dhananjay Prasad
Singh, Sessions Judge, Dumka by which judgment he found the appellant guilty under
Sessions 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I for three
years for an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I for seven
years for an offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and that both
sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that although 10 witnesses
were examined during the trial, but none of the witnesses have supported the
prosecution case except P.W.1, Bistu Bhagat, the father of the deceased and P.W.5,
Rudradeo Bhagat, the brother of the deceased. Even P.W.1, the father of the deceased,
cross-examined on recall, has not supported the prosecution case, as such, conviction
and sentence of the appellant is fit to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the prosecution case
and stated that prosecution case was corroborated by the evidences of P.W. 1, 5, 8 and
10, as such, it has been proved that the victim lady used to be torture for dowry and she
died unnatural death within five years of her marriage, as such, he has rightly been
convicted.
5. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the
prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbayan given by the P.W.1, Bistu
Bhagat, father of the deceased, stating therein that while on 10.05.1999 at 12.15 P.M.,
he was resting after taking food in his house, the villagers of Nonigaon namely Mantu
Layak and Suresh Rajak came to his house and informed him that his daughter Pachiya
Devi was ill with indigestion (Diarrhoea) and she was being treated. Hearing this, he
went to the house of his daughter at village-Nanigaon along with them (witnesses) and
found there that his daughter was dead lying on the cot and family members of the
house were absent. Villagers told that she has been killed by her in-laws by hanging. He
also stated that she was used to torture for bringing money, T.V. and she-calf.
2
6. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Police registered a case under Sections 304-B and
498-A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet
under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against Kaleshwar Tatwa@
Katki Tatwa, Meena Devi, Dhananjoy Manjhi and Chhatu Manjhi. It appears that after
trial, three accused namely, Meena Devi, Dhananjoy Manjhi and Chhatu Manjhi, were
acquitted except husband namely Kaleshwar Tatwa@ Katki Tatwa, who was found
guilty as aforesaid.
7. It appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as
ten witnesses.
P.W.1, Bistu Bhagat, father of the deceased.
P.W.2, Man Kumar Mandal, who is a witness to the inquest report to prove his
signature as Exihibit-1.
P.W.3, Hami Devi, turned hostile.
P.W. 4, Shanti Prasad Jha is a witness to the inquest report to prove by his
signature as Exhibit-1/1.
P.W.5, Rudradeo Bhagat, brother of the deceased.
P.W. 6, Santosh Kumar Manjhi, is a witness of seizure of rope, which is proved
by his signature at Exhibit-1/2.
P. W. 7, Jagdish Bhagat, brother of the deceased, turned hostile.
P.W. 8, Dr. N. K. Thakur, who was conducted the postmortem on the dead body
of deceased (Pachiya Devi).
P.W.9, Bhairo Sah, turned hostile.
P.W.10, Mukesh Chandra Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case.
It appears that prosecution case has been supported by the evidences of the P.W.
1, 5, 8 and 10, while other witnesses P.W. 2, 4 and 6 have proved their signature on the
inquest report and also on the seizure list of the rope.
It appears that P.W.1, Bistu Bhagat, father of the deceased, supported the
prosecution case, when he was examined on 14.08.2000 that there was a demand of she-
calf, T.V., watch etc. by the husband of the deceased and her daughter was usually
tortured by her father-in-law and husband for the same. Lastly, the daughter died
unnatural death and he found her dead body with ligature mark on her neck. But, it
appears that subsequently, he was recalled on 29.08.2000 and stated that she might have
died due to her previous ailment.
P.W. 5, Rudradeo Bhagat, brother of the deceased, has fully supported the
prosecution case and stated that there was demand of she-calf, T.V. and watch etc. by
the brother-in-law and he used to torture his sister and subsequently, within five years of
her marriage, she died.
P. W. 8, Dr. N. K. Thakur, also supported the prosecution case and found the
ligature mark prominently on her neck. In his opinion, the death was caused due to
hanging and asphyxia.
3
P. W. 10, Mukesh Chandra Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case, has also
supported the prosecution case and proved the formal F.I.R., Fardbeyan, inquest report
and seizure list of the rope.
8. In that view of the matter, in my opinion the conviction of the appellant under
Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code has rightly been passed by the trial Court, since the victim died unnatural death at
her sasural within seven years of her marriage and there was torture relating to demand
of dowry till before her death.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has
remained in custody for about four years i.e. from 25.10.1999 to 24.09.2003. On
24.09.2003, he was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in this Criminal Appeal. It is
further submitted that P.W. 7, Jagdish Bhagat, brother of the deceased, has not
supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Even, P.W.1, father of the deceased,
has not supported the case on recall. In that view of the matter, the sentence may be
reduced.
10. Considering the fact that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the
fardbeyan given by the father of the deceased and supported the case in his examination,
but subsequently, not fully supported the prosecution case by him in his cross-
examination on recall. The sentence dated 03.05.2001 of seven years passed by Sri
Dhananjay Prasad Singh, Sessions Judge, Dumka in S.T. No. 77 of 2000 is reduced to
the period of four years under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,
which has already been undergone by the appellant during the trial and appeal . Since,
the appellant is on bail, he is released from the bondage of bail.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with alteration in the order of sentence.
[Pradeep Kumar, J]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
11th January, 2010
Kamlesh/NAFR