D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.8.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 1999, whereby appellants were convicted for the offence u/s. 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. The gist of the charge, as framed against the appellants by the Trial Court, is that on 22.3.1998 at their house at village within Karon P.S. the appellants had committed dowry death by setting the deceased Chandrawati Devi, the wife of the appellant Satish Mahto, on fire.
(2.) THE case against the appellant was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant recorded at the Primary Health Centre at 4.45 PM on 23.12.1998 by the police officer. The case of the prosecution, as alleged in the FIR, is that the deceased Chandrawati Devi, sister of the informant Puran Mahto (PW 4), was married to the appellant Satish Mahto about six years prior to her death. Though, at the time of marriage, the informant have given cash and articles by way of dowry according to his capacity, to the appellants, yet after the marriage, husband and his parent namely, the appellants Ajit Mahto and Batasi Devi demanded 40 tolas of silver ornaments and 01 tola of gold by way of dowry. The informant could not meet the demand on account of his financial constraints. In order to pressurize the informant to meet their demand, the appellants began subjecting the deceased to ill -treatment, neglect and cruelty and depriving her of proper food and comfort. The appellants had even threatened that they would not let the girl to live at her matrimonial house. About 20 days prior to her death, the deceased visited her brother's (informant) house and informant him about the ill -treatment meted out to her and she was assaulted and driven out of her matrimonial house by her husband and in -laws. They had forbiden her entry into her matrimonial house unless their demands of silver and gold ornaments are fulfilled. About 10 days prior to the date of occurrence, one Bharat Mahto, who happens to be the brother - in -law of the appellant Satish Mahto, came to the house of the informant and persuaded the informant to send his sister (deceased) to her matrimonial house. The informant managed to arrage and give 20 tolas of silver ornaments and sent his sister (deceased) on 16.12.1998 to her matrimonial house, escorted by the aforesaid Bharat Mahato. Thereafter, the informant personally visited his sister at her matrimonial house but her in -laws reprimanded him as to why he has not given the full amount of the demanded articles insisting that he should give the remaining gold and silver ornaments along with one television set. A week after i.e. on 23.12.1998 the infromant learnt that his sister (deceased) was burnt to death at her matrimonial house. On this information, the informant went to the house of his sister where he found her lying dead. The further case of the prosecution is that prior to her death, the deceased in her injured condition, was taken to the Primary Health Centre, the police arrived at the hospital where the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded and on the basis of which, the instant case was registered against the appellants.
(3.) THE appellants had denied the charges, pleading not guilty.;