- (1.) THE appellants, herein, were convicted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1989.
(2.) THE case of the Prosecution in brief is that the daughter of the informant, namely, Manju Devi was married to the accused Kamal Mahato. It is said that the husband of Manju Devi namely, Kamal Mahato and his brother -in -law, namely, Thako Mahato came to the informant on 30th of April, 1987 and informed him that Manju Devi was traceless since 28.4.1987. At this, the informant Maharaj Mahato, the maternal uncle of Manju Devi, went to Village -Amba, where he was informed that the accused persons had actually caused murder of her niece Manju Devi and disposed of her dead body. The informant could not meet the accused persons as they were absconding and as such he returned. Thereafter the informant alongwith Naresh Mahato and Govind Mahato again went to village Amba and at that time they found that the accused persons had shaved their heads. The accused persons told the informant that whatever had to happen, it had already happened and, therefore, he was at liberty to do so whatever he liked. According to the informant right from the time of marriage, the accused persons were demanding bicycle but the widowed mother of the victim girl was not in a position to fulfill their demand of dowry, therefore, it was suspected that Manju Devi was done to death. In order to prove the charge, the Prosecution did examine altogether ten P.Ws. out of which, P. W. 5 and P.W. 9 were tendered. P.W. 10 is a formal witness P.W. 2 Asha Devi is the mother of the victim Manju Devi. And P.W. 1 Naresh Mahato and P.W. 3 Doman Mahato are her uncles P.W. 4 Pokhan Mahato, P.W. 6 Jeeblal Mahato and P.W. 7 Raj Kumar Mahato are the co -villagers. P.W. 8 Maharaj Mahato is the maternal uncle of the victim and is the first informant. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. Admittedly, there is no eye -witness to the occurrence.
(3.) THE whole case of the Prosecution hinges on the circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the charges, the Prosecution adduced in evidence, the following circumstantial evidence. (i) Firstly, that the girl was trace -less since 28.4.1987 but the accused persons informed the informant on 30th of April, 1987 i.e. after much delay. (ii) Secondly, that when the witnesses went to the Village -Amba after hearing the news of missing of Manju Devi, all the accused persons were missing/absconding from their house, which suggests their guilty mind. (iii) Thirdly, that when the Prosecution witnesses has gone to the Village -Amba for the second time, they found the accused persons had got their heads shaved, which was suggestive of the fact that Manju Devi was done to death and her body was disposed of by the accused persons. (iv) Fourthly, the utterance of words by the accused, Lakho Mahatwain, mother -in -law of the victim girl, that whatever had to happen had already happened was suggestive of the fact regarding the missing of the victim girl, Manju Devi and that the accused persons had full knowledge but they were not disclosing the correct facts before the Prosecution witnesses. (v) And lastly, that the victim girl Manju Devi was always subject to harassment and torture due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. ;