Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2002
---
Against the judgment dated 13th December, 2001, and sentenced
passed on 15.12.2001, passed by Sri William Minz, 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Sessions Trial No.368 of 2000.
------
Purushottam Mahto ------- Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ------- Respondent.
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. H.K. Sikarwar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. H.K. Mahto, Advocate
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
By Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
State as well as learned counsel for the informant.
It appears that as the appeal is directed against the judgment dated
th
13 December, 2001, and sentenced passed on 15.12.2001, passed by
Sri William Minz, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in
Sessions Trial No.368 of 2000, by which judgment, the appellant
Purushottam Mahto was found guilty under Section 304B of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for ten
years.
The prosecution case was started on the basis of the frad beyan
given by P.W.1, informant, Jagdish Mahto on 13.1.2000 at about 4:30
hours at Bishunghar police station, stating therein that his deceased sister,
Manju Devi was married to accused Purushottam Mahto and as his elder
brother Baijnath Mahto used to torture his sister for dowry and sometime
also used to assault her. They never allowed her to visit his house and
they were demanding Hero Honda Motor-cycle. Both the brothers had
said that until and unless the Hero Honda Motor-cycle is given to them,
they will not allow his sister to visit his house. It is stated subsequently
that his brother-in-law Purushottam Mahto got employed at Jerangdih
Colliery and his sister started living with him in block No.4, quarter No.6 in
the Sabitri Colony. It is stated that when they visited Sabitri Colony, Block
No.4, quarter No.6, his brother-in-law demanded motorcycle from him. It
is alleged that on 12.1.2000, when his cousin brother Teju Mahto went to
bring his sister, then Purushottam Mahto became furious and by giving leg
blow upon his sister, whereupon his brother came back weeping to his
house. It is alleged that, on that day in the morning, his elder brother-in-
law Sushil Kumar informed him that his sister has been murdered and her
dead body had been brought for cremating, whereupon they rushed to
Govindpur and saw her dead body lying on the ‘varamda’ of the house of
2 Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002
his brother-in-law who was making preparation for cremation and he came
to know that his sister has died due to strangulation and her dead body
has been brought here, whereupon they took the dead body to the police
station. Purusottam had also come to the police station and on the
allegation that Purusottam Mahto and his brother Viduyat Mahto had
committed the murder of his sister for not bringing the motorcycle as
dowry. The case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered by the police and after
investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against both the accused
persons under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Since the case was triabled by Court of Sessions and the
same was committed to the Sessions and subsequently the case was
transferred to the court of first Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, where
charges were framed. Both the accused persons were found guilty for the
offence under 304B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It appears that in course of trial, seven prosecution witnesses were
examined but since the prosecution failed to prove the charges under
Section 304B and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused
Vidayut Mahot, hence he was acquitted from the charges and since the
charges was not proved against this appellant and he was also acquitted
under 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
prosecution has examined seven witnesses in course of trial and all are
related to the family of the deceased and none of them have supported
the prosecution case since no dowry was demanded for the marriage or
that the victim girl Manju Devi used to be tortured for dowry by the
appellant except the informant P.W.1. Even the statement of P.W.1 has
not been supported by his brother.
It is important to note that the mother and the father were not
examined in the case and as such, the prosecution case has become
doubtful. Moreover non-examination of the doctor and the Investigating
Officer has also caused prejudice to the prosecution and the prosecution
case with regard to the death of the deceased. In that view of the matter,
the appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against
him.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has submitted
that the informant P.W.1 has fully supported the prosecution case and in
his cross-examination, he has stated the case is against the accused
person. In that view of the matter, the single evidence of the victim is
sufficient and the trial court has rightly convicted him.
3 Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002
After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find
that the prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 is Jagdish
Mahato, informant, P.W.2 is Bholi Mahato, brother of the deceased, P.W.3
Jamuna Mahato, another brother of the deceased, P.W.4 is Tejo Mahto,
cousin brother of the deceased, P.W.5 is Narayan Mahto, cousin brother
P.W.6 is Wakil Mahto and P.W.7 is Shambhu Mahto, he is also the cousin
brother of the deceased.
It is important to note that P.W.1, in his statement has fully
supported the prosecution case as given by him in the first information
report and he stated in court that the deceased sister Manju Devi was
married with the appellant Purushottam Mahto in the year 1994 and she
started living at her husband house, when the appellant got employment
at Bokaro Thermal Colliery, she started living in the quarter of Sabitari
Colony, Block No.4, quarter No.6. He has stated that after two to four
months, he started demanding a Hero Honda Motorcycle. His sister
informed about this to her father and also informed him. His father was
not in a position to give him a Motorcycle and hence could not fulfil the
same. He stated that the non-fulfillment of the demand, he used to
assault Manju Devi and never allowed her to come to her father’s house.
He also stated that on 12.1.2000, his cousin brother Tejo Mahto had gone
to the house of Manju Devi for bringing her back to her ‘Maike’ but the
appellant Purushottam Mahto become furious and assaulted her in his
presence and also threw foot blow on her whereupon, Tejo Mahto came
back weeping and stated that unless motorcycle is given, he will not allow
Manju Devi to go to her ‘maike’. He stated in para-6 on 13.1.2000, his
elder brother-in-law Sushil Kumar came to her ‘maike’ on 9 A.M and
stated that Purushottam was going to Govindpur for cremation of the dead
body, whereupon he ran and saw the dead body of Manju Devi. The
accused Purushottam Mahto stated to him that Manju Devi has committed
suicide. He saw the dead body and found blue mark around her neck and
injury on her back, then he took the dead body to the police station. The
accused Purushottam Mahto also went with them and on his statement,
the case was registered. He identified his signature on the fradbeyan and
proved the same as exhibit-1. He also proved the inquest report has
exhibit-2 and submitted that the dead body was sent for post mortem.
It is important to note that the statement given by the informant
P.W.1 has not been supported by his brothers, who were examined as
P.W.2 to 7 as stated earlier. The appellant stated that on 12.1.2000, his
cousin brother Tejo Mahto had visited the house of Manju Devi, where it is
alleged that the appellant Purushottam Mahto become furious and
assaulted Manju Devi and threw a foot blow on her, but this statement of
this informant at para-3 in examination-in-chief has not been supported by
4 Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002
P.W.4 Tejo Mahto during his examination. P.W.4 was tendered for cross-
examination. He stated that Manju Devi is his cousin sister and she never
made any complaint against her husband in his presence that her
husband assaulted or put any demand for dowry. He stated that police
never examined him. So the statement of P.W.1 at para-2 that Tejo
Mahto visited to the house of his sister is not corroborated by the
statement of P.W.4 Tego Mahto as stated. He stated that on 13.1.2000,
his elder brother Sunil Kumar, informed that Purusottam Mahto, appellant
has brought the dead body to Govindpur and is proceeding for cremation,
but the said Sunil Kumar has not been examined in court and his
statement can not be corroborated by any other evidence. Moreover in
para-2 of his examination-in-chief, the informant, P.W.1 stated that the
demand of motorcycle was firstly informed by Manju Devi to her father but
it is important to note that his father has not been examined by the police,
nor he was is examined in court to corroborate the statement given by the
informant. As far as, other evidences are concerned, it is important to
note that they have given contradictory statement to their elder brother,
P.W.1 and P.W.2, Bholi Mahto. Another brother of the deceased Manju
Devi stated in court that there was no demand of any dowry from the side
of his brother-in-law. He stated that whenever he visited his house and
met his sister, he always found her happy and she made no complain
against her husband Purushottom Mahto. He never knew that Manju Devi
is being tortured by her husband. He also stated that he could not
understand as to how his elder brother has filed this case against his
brother-in-law. He stated that his statement was recorded by police. He
did not say to police that his brother filed a case against his brother-in-law.
Another brother, P.W.3 Jammuna Mahto stated in para-3 and 4 that
he never saw his sister and brother-in-law fighting. It is important to note
that P.W.5, another brother of the deceased, Narayan Mahto has stated
that Manju Devi was his cousin sister and she was mentally disturbed.
She committed suicide and there was no demand of dowry.
P.W.7, Shambhu Mahto seems to be an independent witness. He
has stated that he knows Jagdish Mahto and his sister Manju Devi. He
heard that Manju Devi committed suicide by putting a rope on her neck.
He has also stated in para-4, that there was no complain against her
husband. Whenever, he met Manju, she made no complain about her
husband.
After going through the prosecution case, I find that the evidence of
P.W.1 is not corroborated by any other witnesses, rather the very basis
that before the occurrence on 12.1.2000, his brother Tejo Mahto visited to
the house Manju Devi has not been supported by Tego Mahot in court.
His allegation that there was demand of motorcycle has also not been
5 Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002
supported by his father and mother. They did not come in court but
brothers were examined in court. They have not supported him. They did
not know, as to why his elder brother Jagdish Mahto lodged this case
against his brother-in-law Purushottam Mahto, who never assaulted his
sister or demand motorcycle.
It is important to note that although post mortem report, marked as
exhibit-3 but doctor was not examined. From the perusal of the post-
mortem report, it appears that she died due to Aphyxia caused by
hanging.
Although after the consideration of all the witnesses available on
record, a question arises that as to why the deceased committed suicide,
when there was no demand of dowry. As per the evidences of her
brothers, P.W.2 to 7, that there was no torture from the side of the
accused. It appears from the evidences of P.W.1 itself as he stated at
para-21 that his sister and her husband Purusottam Mahto were running
‘Kitchripros’ shop in the quarter itself and it was suggested to him in para-
24 that Purusottam Mahto asked Manju Devi to make arrangement for the
shop and then leave for her ‘Maike’ whereupon she became sentimental
and in the absence of Purusottam Mahto, she committed suicide by
hanging herself.
As discussed above, since the statement of the informant is not
supported by any family members of the deceased and since his statement
given in para-2 and 3 have been denied by P.W.4. In that view
of the matter, the prosecution case and the statement of P.W.1 is not free
from doubt .The informant lodged this case and also supported the same
in court but no one has supported him. In that view of the matter, the
allegation against the appellant has not been proved by the evidences
beyond doubts and the benefit of doubt is being given to the appellant.
As such the benefit of doubt is given to the appellant Purushottam
Mahto and he is acquitted from the charges levelled under Section 304B of
the Indian Penal Code and the judgment passed by first Additional
Sessions Judge, Bokaro dated 13.12.2001 is set-aside. The appellant is
on bail and he is released from the bondage of bail bond.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
th
Dated-19 May, 2009
R.Kumar/N.A.F.R.