D.P.SINGH,J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals have been preferred by the appellants named above, against the judgment, and order dated 25.6.2002 and 26.6.2002 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2000/175 of 2000 by 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder they were found guilty for the offences under Sections 304 -B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304 -B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and one year for the offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each, in default thereof to serve rigorous imprisonment for one year. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) BREIFLY stated the facts leading to these appeals are that deceased Lalo Devi was found dead in a well situated in village Kori, Police Station Burmu In the morning of 29.6.1999. According to informant Mahadeo Mahto, his daughter was married with one Suresh Mahto, four years ago but after two years her husband left her due to intimate relation between the deceased and appellant Mahabir Mahto. It is further asserted that when Suresh Mahto did not agree to keep Lalo Devi, villagers decided that appellant Mahabir Mahto should marry with the deceased. Accordingly, on 1.4.1999, appellant Mahablr Mahto put vermilion on the head of Lalo Devi and she started living In. his house as his wife. As alleged, this marriage was opposed by other appellants, Blglahi Devi and Palko Devi, the mother -in -law and the sister -in -law of the deceased. It is also asserted that she was not treated properly and tortured, According to the informant in the morning of 29.6.1999when Munia Devi, the daughter -in -law of the Informant went to fetch water from the well, she found dead body of Lalo Devi flouting inside the well along with one plastic bag. The matter was reported to the village Chowkidar and dead body brought out with the help of villagers. The Informant suspected that Lalo Devi was killed and her dead body was thrown in the well by the appellants. His statement was recorded by S.I.S.C. Singh, Burmu Police Station. On the basis of which Burmu Police Station Case No. 36 of 1999 under Sections 304 -B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against four accused persons. The police after investigating the case, submitted charge -sheet against only three accused i.e., the appellants. Their cases were committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants on 10.5.2000 under Sections 304 -B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants pleaded innocence. However, the learned trial Court after examining the witnesses found and held all the appellants guilty under Sections 304 -B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated above.
(3.) THESE appeals have been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has misconstrued the facts and wrongly appreciated the materials on records. It is further asserted that there was no evidence to support the allegations that Lalo Devi was ill -treated and tortured for dowry demands. It is also submitted that in absence of any dowry demand Immediately before alleged death, presumption could not be drawn against the appellants under Section 113 -B of the Indian Evidence Act. It is asserted that when marriage between appellant Mahabir Mahto and deceased took place because of love affair, the question of demanding dowry does not arise. According to these memos of appeal, the learned trial Court having relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses and ignored that death was caused due to drowning. It has also been stressed that the post - mortem report does not show any external injury on the dead body. As such, the presumption used against the appellants for their conviction was not warranted.;