- (1.) ALL the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304(B) /34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for three years and ten years respectively, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 1998/29 of 1998.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that appellant Mithu @ Mithlesh Rout was married with Radhiya @ Radha Devi, daughter of informant Bhikhan Mahto (P.W. 1) in the year 1993. According to the informant, he spent Rs. 26,000/ - during marriage; however, it did not satisfy the appellants. It was further alleged that after sometime all the appellants started demanding Rs. 10,000/ - from him, which could not be fulfilled. The deceased usually complained that she was being ill -treated, assaulted for non -fulfillment of dowry demands. He has specifically alleged that only one year before this occurrence, she was branded with hot iron rod on which he protested but the appellants threatened him. Further case of the prosecution is that on 4.9.1997, the informant arrived at the house of the appellants to take his daughter for Karma festival when he was again asked to pay Rs. 10,000/ - as dowry demands. According to P.W. 1, in the night at 12.00 P.M., he was informed by the appellants that his daughter was missing though she has served him food at 8.00 P.M. The informant tried to search his daughter, but could not locate her. On next day, 5.9.1997 in the afternoon, appellant Sahdeo Rout suggested to him that she might have gone to her Naihar and tried to extract his signature on a plain paper which was refused. Next day on 6.9.1997, it came to his knowledge that Radhiya has not reached her Naihar and all the appellants again tried to get his signature on plain paper but anyhow he could manage to leave. He arrived at Mahuatand his native place and went back on 7.9.1997 alongwith one Jageshwar Prasad Yadav to find that the dead body of his daughter was floating in a well situated in Soniya Bahiyar. The police arrived at the well and recorded his fardbeyan. On the basis of which, Hirodih Police Station Case No. 40 dated 7.9.1997 under Sections 304B/498A/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the five named persons. The police prepared inquest report, sent the dead body for post mortem examination and completed the investigation to finally submit charge -sheet against the appellants. The trial of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed against all of them for offence under Sections 498A, 201 and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However, the learned trial court after examining the witnesses found and held all of them guilty and sentenced them to serve rigorous imprisonment as stated above.
(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the grounds that the learned trial court has not considered the materials on record properly. It is also asserted that the conviction is based upon the sole evidence of the informant, as other witnesses have turned hostile. According to Mr. S.K. Ughal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the statement of P.W. 1 is also contradictory and deserves to be rejected as hetried to implicate all the appellants though they were not in any way connected with the dowry demands. According to learned counsel, the story that he was confined in the house of the appellants for two days itself makes the whole prosecution story doubtful. In this context, the statement of D.W. 2 Jageshwar Prasad Yadav is cited. It is also submitted that even the inquest report prepared by the police has not been supported by P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. Learned counsel further pointed out that the description of the dead body given by P.W. 1 has not been supported by P.W. 4, the investigating officer in this case. Learned counsel further pointed out that the informant has failed to connect the dowry demands with other appellants except the husband. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges.;