D.N.UPADHYAY, J. - (1.) The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.9.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad in connection with S.T. No. 347 of 1993 corresponding to Topchanchi (Hariharpur) P.S. Case No. 65 of 1998 (G.R. No. 379 of 1988), is under challenge in this appeal.
(2.) On 10.5.1988, Fardbeyan of Basudeo Mandal was recorded by S.I. Gupteshwar Singh of Hariharpur Police Station on the basis of which Topchanchi (Hariharpur) P.S. Case No. 65 of 1988 u/s 498A, 328, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act against the appellants and other accused was registered. The fact which appeared from the Fardbeyan in brief is that Sumitra Devi (daughter of the informant) was married to appellant Nepal Mandal in the year 1986, but she was not happy with her conjugal life as the accused persons including the appellants had been demanding Rs. 1,500/-, balance amount towards dowry. The informant due to his poor economic condition failed to meet the demand, therefore, Sumitra was subjected to torture and treated with cruelty by her husband and in-laws. On the eve of Holi, the deceased had been to her parent's house, but fifteen days prior to her death, she was taken back to her matrimonial home by her husband Nepal Mandal. On 8.5.1988, the appellant Nepal Mandal informed to Dwarika Prasad (brother of informant) that Sumitra is lying ill. The informant after receiving such information with regard to illness of the daughter went to the house of Sumitra and found that she was lying unconscious on a cot. When he asked to her mother-in-law, she told that no medical treatment has yet been provided to her. Thereafter Sumitra was brought by the informant, but there was no change in her condition and hence she was taken to Ashirvad Nursing Home at Dhanbad at about 1.00-1.30 p.m., but she was declared dead. The informant with the dead body of his daughter went to Hariharpur P.S. in the evening and logged a written report, disclosing suspicious condition in which Sumitra died. On the following day postmortem was done and the Doctor had opined cause of death due to poisoning. When the informant got confirmed that his daughter died due to poisoning, he had given his Fardbeyan raising allegations against the appellants and other accused.
(3.) The police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet against four accused persons namely, Nepal Mandal, Gopal Mandal, Sadanand Mandal, and Titli Devi u/s 498A, 328, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The case of the appellants and other accused was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was registered as S.T. No. 372 of 1993. The charges were framed and the accused persons were put on trial. In course of trial, charges were framed u/s 498A, 328, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. On 16.04.2002 a fresh charge u/s 304B I.P.C. was framed. The accused persons facing the trial had waived the cross examination of the witnesses after amendment of the charge.;