- (1.) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th January, 2005 and 18th January,2005 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Bokaro in connection with Sessions Trial no. 375 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 445 of 2003, Chas (M) P.S. Case no. 39 of 2003, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304B, 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life u/s 304B /34 I.P.C., R.I. for two years u/s 498A IPC and R.I. for one year U/s 4 of the D.P.Act and further directed to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default further to undergo one month imprisonment. The sentences so passed were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The facts reveal from the written report lodged by Smt. Sundari Devi (PW-4) is that Gendiya Devi (deceased) was married with appellant Mantu Mahto, but, she did not experience happy conjugal life due to demand of dowry and she was subjected to torture. The information regarding torture and demand of dowry were duly communicated to the informant by her daughter. The deceased was living with her parents, but, eight days prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant Mantu Mahto took Bidai of his wife and brought her to his house. On 1.6.2003 at about 11 a.m. the informant received death news of Gendiya Devi. After receiving such information she rushed to Pupunkitola-Jolahadih and saw her daughter lying dead on a cot. On being questioned, the appellants disclosed that due to abdominal pain and headache Gindiya died. The informant suspecting that her daughter has been killed, lodged written report and on the basis of such written report Bokaro Chas (M) P.S. Case no. 39 of 2003 dated 01.6.2003 U/s. 304(B)/34 I.P.C. was registered. Investigation was carried out and after collecting evidence and documents charge sheet U/Ss. 498A, 302/34 and 3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case no. 375 of 2003.
(3.) The appellants stood charged for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 alternatively U/s 304 (B) of the I.P.C. and Section 3,4 of the D.P.Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses but, no witness on behalf of defence was examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence and documents available, held the appellants guilty and inflicted sentence as indicated above.;