- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 1/4/1998 passed by 4th passed by the Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 288/92 whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the sister of the informant Mala Devi was married to the appellant Nand Kishore Sahu in the year 1976. After two years of marriage, the appellant started torturing and assaulting his wife. Subsequently, he left his wife in his in-laws place where she lived for about three years in between 1978 to 1980. Thereafter, a Panchayati was convened and in the said Panchayati, the appellant gave undertaking that he would keep his wife nicely and would not ill treat her and he took his wife with him. It was also alleged that the appellant had also kept a concubine since the last 3-4 years. Further case is that on 27/1/1990, the informant received a letter from the appellant in which, it was written that the informant's sister had received burn injuries and she was admitted in the Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan Hospital, Ranchi. After receiving this information, the informant went to the said hospital and found his sister Mala Devi admitted in the Hospital having burn injuries above her neck and on her face. His sister Mala Devi told him that her husband (appellant) had poured Kerosene Oil on her body and thereafter, set her on fire. She also disclosed that she was being tortured and pressurised not to disclose this fact and she was also being given threats. Thereafter, the informant lodged F.I.R.
(3.) The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 498-A, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence of the appellant was denial of the occurrence and of false implication.;