- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant. It appears that as the appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th December, 2001, and sentenced passed on 15.12.2001, passed by Sri William Minz, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Sessions Trial No.368 of 2000, by which judgment, the appellant Purushottam Mahto was found guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
(2.) THE prosecution case was started on the basis of the frad beyan given by P.W.1, informant, Jagdish Mahto on 13.1.2000 at about 4:30 hours at Bishunghar police station, stating therein that his deceased sister, Manju Devi was married to accused Purushottam Mahto and as his elder brother Baijnath Mahto used to torture his sister for dowry and sometime also used to assault her. They never allowed her to visit his house and they were demanding Hero Honda Motor -cycle. Both the brothers had said that until and unless the Hero Honda Motor -cycle is given to them, they will not allow his sister to visit his house. It is stated subsequently that his brother -in -law Purushottam Mahto got employed at Jerangdih Colliery and his sister started living with him in block No.4, quarter No.6 in the Sabitri Colony. It is stated that when they visited Sabitri Colony, Block No.4, quarter No.6, his brother -in -law demanded motorcycle from him. It is alleged that on 12.1.2000, when his cousin brother Teju Mahto went to bring his sister, then Purushottam Mahto became furious and by giving leg blow upon his sister, whereupon his brother came back weeping to his house. It is alleged that, on that day in the morning, his elder brother -inlaw Sushil Kumar informed him that his sister has been murdered and her dead body had been brought for cremating, whereupon they rushed to Govindpur and saw her dead body lying on the ˜varamda' of the house of Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002 2 his brother -in -law who was making preparation for cremation and he came to know that his sister has died due to strangulation and her dead body has been brought here, whereupon they took the dead body to the police station. Purusottam had also come to the police station and on the allegation that Purusottam Mahto and his brother Viduyat Mahto had committed the murder of his sister for not bringing the motorcycle as dowry. The case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered by the police and after investigation, the police submitted charge -sheet against both the accused persons under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since the case was triabled by Court of Sessions and the same was committed to the Sessions and subsequently the case was transferred to the court of first Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, where charges were framed. Both the accused persons were found guilty for the offence under 304B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that in course of trial, seven prosecution witnesses were examined but since the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Section 304B and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Vidayut Mahot, hence he was acquitted from the charges and since the charges was not proved against this appellant and he was also acquitted under 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution has examined seven witnesses in course of trial and all are related to the family of the deceased and none of them have supported the prosecution case since no dowry was demanded for the marriage or that the victim girl Manju Devi used to be tortured for dowry by the appellant except the informant P.W.1. Even the statement of P.W.1 has not been supported by his brother.;