Ratnaker Bhengra,J. - (1.) These Criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.5.2003 in S.T. No. 119 of 2001 passed by the learned, 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby the appellants above named have been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Shankar Mahto and Nageshwar Prasad have been further found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they have been further convicted under the above sections. The convicts Shankar Mahto, Nageshwar Prasad and Parvati are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven year for the offence punishable under sections 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and convicts Shankar Mahto and Nageshwar Prasad are also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code .Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case in brief, as per written report of Chhoti Mahto dated 3.11.1999 is that his daughter Manti Devi was married to Nageshwar Prasad of Gayapahari in the month of Baisakh in the same year (1999). After marriage his daughter went to her matrimonial house and lived with her husband. But after marriage Manti Devi's (deceased) father-in-law Shankar Mahto, mother-in-law Parvati Devi, husband Nageshwar Prasad, one of her sister in-law(Gotni) and wife of Narayan Mahto and brother-in-law (Dever) Meghan Prasad began demanding Rs.10,000/- as Tilak. This matter was told by Manti Devi to her family members. After the karma festival in the month of Asin he returned with his daughter to her matrimonial home. The informant promised before the appellants that he will give the money after selling potatoes. But in-laws family still troubled Manti Devi. So his daughter came back to her parental house. It is further alleged that informant once again accompanied his daughter to her sasural on 22.10.1999 and in the next week on Sunday dated 31.10.1999 he once again went to Manti Devi's Sasural to ask about his daughter's well being and after having food the informant returned to his house. On Monday morning dated 1.11.1999 he left for his own in-laws place(Sasural) in Koderma districts. It is further alleged that he went on Monday and returned home around 5 P.M on Tuesday. On reaching home his wife, who was weeping, told him that his daughter was killed and then cremated. The he came to know from his neighbors and the mohalla people of Manti Devi's Sasural that on Monday his daughter was cremated. It is further alleged that informant's cousin brother Dina Mahto, Hemal Mahto and his neighbours, told him that why would the accused inform about her death because after her death blood was coming out of her ears, nose and mouth and her tongue bore cut marks. Hence after hearing the above mentioned facts the informant was sure that his daughter has been killed.
(3.) On the basis of written report of the informant Barkatha P.S Case No. 86 of 1999 was registered under sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Investigation of the case was taken up and after completion of Investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 119 of 2001. Charges were framed under section 304B,201 of the Indian Penal Code against which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.;