- (1.) All the three appellants have assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2001 and 29.06.2001 respectively passed by Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.217 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the three appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution version, as unfolded during trial is as follows: A fardbeyan (Ext.1) of the informant Mohan Mahto was recorded by Subhash Chandra Sethi, OfficerinCharge, Kunda police station on 19.08.1999 at 11.30 a.m. at police station is that the daughter of the informant Nasha Devi was married with Raju Mahto according to Hindu rites and at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given and after marriage Nasha Devi went to her Sasural and when she returned from her Sasural almost after ten days, she informed the informant and her mother that her Sasural people were demanding a motorcycle and T.V. and have warned not to come to her Sasural without those articles. Almost after a month, the appellant Raju Mahto came for Bidai of his daughter and at that time also Raju Mahto demanded a T.V. and motorcycle from the informant. His Samdhi Gobind Mahto also came during this period and had demanded those articles but anyhow the informant pacified the matter and sent his daughter to her Sasural and whenever his daughter came to his house, she always repeated the demands of her Sasural people and she also used to say if those demands are not fulfilled, her Sasural people would kill her. It is also alleged that in the month of June, his daughter again came to his house and went back almost after ten days when her husband had come for her Bidai. This time also at the time of Bidai she had reminded the informant that as the demands have not been satisfied her Sasural people would kill her. On 17.08.1999, Arjun Mahto, the maternal uncle of his soninlaw came to his house and informed his wife that her daughter Nasha Devi has died in her Sasural. After getting this information, the informant along with his two sons Amin Mahto and Baleshwar Mahto came to the Sasural of his deceased daughter and enquired from the villagers but none of them whispered anything. Even his Samdhi Gobind Mahto, soninlaw Raju Mahto, his mother Ajhola Devi did not disclose anything before the informant but anyhow he came to know that his daughter died on 12.08.1999 itself and her Sasural people in a hurried manner burnt the dead body. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged and formal F.I.R. (Ext.2) was drawn. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the appellants. The court below after taking cognizance committed the case to the court of Sessions. The charge against the three appellants were framed under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code for causing dowry death of Nasha Devi, the deceased and also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) The three appellants took the defence that the deceased died on account of ailment and she was cremated after informing her father and other family members. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be falsely implicated.;