AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) DOTH the criminal appeals arise out. of the same impugned judgment dated 07/06/2003 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbacl in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2001 and, therefore, they were taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE appellant Mahanand Mahto of Cr. Appeal No. 467 of 2004 is the husband of the deceased Sudha Devi and two appellants namely Chhotu Ram Mahto and Shanti Devi of Cr. Appeal No. 796 of 2003 are the father and mother of Mahanand Mahto, i.e. the father -in -law and mother -in -law of the deceased Sudha Devi. All the aforesaid three appellants were charged for committing the offence under Sections 302, 120B, 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by his impugned judgment dated 07/06/2003, acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Sections 302, 120B and 201 IPC as well as for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but found them guilty for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for a period of 10 years each. The prosecution case in short is that on 26/02/2000 the 'Samdhi' of the informant (PW -2) namely Chhotu Ram Mahto (one of the appellant) came to the informant Kashi Nath Mahto and informed him that his daughter namely Sudha Devi was missing from the night of 25/02/2000 and she could not be traced out in spite of search made in the houses of the relatives. On this information the informant alongwith 15 -20 villagers went in search of his daughter to the village of his 'Samdhi'. He also tried to search his daughter but no trace of her was found. On 27/02/2000 the informant came to know that some blood stains were lying at 'Kalisthan' which was near to the house of his Samdhi and there were also some marks of dragging towards Damodar River. On receipt of such information, the informant reached near Damodar River but he did not find his daughter but, however, he could find a petticoat of his daughter, which was having blood stains. The 'Samdhin', i.e. the appellant Shanti Devi also affirmed that the said petticoat was of her daughter -in -law, i.e. of the deceased. The informant alleged that his son -in -law Mahanand Mahto used to ill treat, torture and assault his daughter and he used to threaten her that if the money demanded by him by way of dowry is not paid to him he would kill her. The informant stated that in order to make his daughter and son -in -law happy, he regularly used to pay money to him. The marriage between them was solemnized in the year 1998 and a child was also born out of (heir wedlock. According to the allegations of the informant his daughter was killed by the accused persons and her dead body was made to disappear. On the basis of the information given by the informant, the FIR was registered under Sections 302, 120B, 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(3.) THE defence case is of total denial of the occurrence and of false implication.;