Patna High Court
Madhvendra Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 30 April, 2012
Author: Mandhata Singh
Bench: Mandhata Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.534 of 2009
****
Against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2009 and 21.5.2009 passed in
Sessions Trial no. 412/2006 by Sri Ram Chandra Sahani, Additional Sessions
Judge, F.T.C. II, Muzaffarpur.
===========================================================
Basudeo Mahto
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 583 of 2009
===========================================================
Madhvendra Mahto
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
with
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 499 of 2009
===========================================================
Daulatia Devi
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance:
CR. APP (SJ) No. 534 of 2009
With
CR. APP (SJ) No. 583 of 2009
with
CR. APP (SJ) No. 499 of 2009
For the Appellants:
(In all the appeals) Mr. Yugal Kishore &
Mr. Arvind Kumar
For the Respondent:
(In all the appeals) Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 30-04-2012 Statement/Fardbeyan of one Rakesh Kumar informant of the case has been made basis for the F.I.R. which, in brief, is that his sister Indu Devi aged Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.534 of 2009 dt.30-04-2012 2 about 21 years was married three years ago with accused appellant Madhvendra mahto according to Hindu rite and rituals. She went her matrimonial home. Husband and father-in-law of the deceased Indu Devi were making demand of one Hero Honda Motorcycle for which assurance only was being given by informant's father. For non-fulfilment of demand of dowry she was put under torture by the husband and her father-in-law. Demand and torture was being narrated by the deceased Indu Devi also. Panchaities conducted at several occasions resulted into assurance to keep her with all O.K.
2. Further prosecution case is that two days earlier to the incident the deceased Indu Devi had come to her parents at the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and after performing the work of Raksha Bandhan she was taken to her matrimonial home by her brother. Her husband and father-in-law abused her brother saying why he had brought her sister. Accused appellant Daulatia Devi Fua of the husband abused and assaulted her also. Informant also was attacked when he protested the assault his sister. Villagers were called on his behalf then only the victim girl could be saved.
3. At the occasion of Mahaviri Jhanda there was programme of dance in the night and after watching the dance programme when the informant came in the night to deceased's house, he was requested by in-laws of her sister to sleep in the house of one Sunil Mahto. In the morning at the house of Sunil Mahto, informant was informed by accused Madhvendar Mahto that his sister had left the house in the night. She was searched and he came to know that the dead body of his sister was kept secret. Matter was informed to informant's family members and Police and dead body was recovered from Goraha house.
4. Accused appellants along with others are blamed for killing deceased sister of informant. Post mortem is conducted over the dead body. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.534 of 2009 dt.30-04-2012 3 Charge sheet submitted in the case and the trial ended in conviction and sentence to accused appellants for the offence under sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. In all 11 witnesses are examined in the case and they are P.W. 1 Bhangar Mahto, P.W.2 Ram Chandra Mahto, P.W.3 Dhanai Mahto, P.W.4 Ram Babu Mahto, P.W.4(a) Anil Kumar Mahto, P.W.5 Kawla Devi, P.W.6 Bhuili Devi mother of the deceased, P.W.7 Rakesh Kumar informant of the case, P.W.8 Shiv Ram Das one of the I.Os who really has conducted investigation, P.W.9 Rajiv Kumar Jha next I.O. of the case who has submitted charge sheet in the case, P.W.10 Ram Nath Mahto father of the deceased and P.W.11 Dr Ram Biswas Yadav.
6. P.W.11 has conducted post mortem only and death is found homicidal one, as mark of violence was there on the person of the dead body. P.Ws 8 and 9 are I.Os of the case. P.W.8 is more important on the point that his attention has been drawn on the point of statement of some of the witnesses which may be discussed if needed.
7. Of them (witnesses) P.W.1 states to know nothing about the occurrence. He has been declared hostile but of no avail for the prosecution. P.W.2 states about killing the deceased by some enemy. So, evidence of these two witnesses has no relevance in the case. Rest of witnesses are to state the incident in their own way. P.Ws 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6 and 10 are witnesses who are making hearsay statement on the point of going of the informant with his sister to her matrimonial home, thereafter his further going to watch the dance programme at the occasion of Mahabiri Jhanda. On this point informant is a single witnesses from the side of prosecution to be relied but he has corroboration from two witnesses examined on behalf of defence itself. They are D.W.1 and D.W.2. They Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.534 of 2009 dt.30-04-2012 4 are stating about their going to watch the dance with informant along with husband of the deceased followed by recovery of deceased's dead body in the morning. There is nothing to doubt that the informant is constant to corroborate F.I.R. version on this point that he had gone to his sister.
8. Now next question arises as what witnesses are stating on the point of torture, cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry and its non- fulfilment. P.Ws 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7 and 10 are there to state the demand of dowry, torture or harassment due to its non-fulfilment either as hearsay witness or the person to whom really demand was made and by whom. Prosecution case is that for demand and torture or cruelty, Panchaity held at different occasions that is corroborated by P.Ws 4, 7 and 10. By whom it was made witnesses are not constant on this point. None of the witnesses stated about demand by Daulatia Devi appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2009 rather P.Ws 5 and 6 are there to state that Daulatia Devi was residing at her Sasural. Both these witnesses are aunt and mother of deceased. P.W.3 states about demand by father-in-law of the deceased. P.Ws 4A, 5, 7 and 10 all are stating about demand by husband though P.W.7 informant of the case is stating about demand by father of husband also which is in corroboration of the F.I.R. For the father, P.W.5 aunt of the deceased and P.W.6 mother of the deceased are stating that Basudeo Mahto (father-in-law of the deceased) was living separate with his younger son but there appeared no such excuse with the husband.
9. It is admitted case of the parties that death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage, evidence is due to injuries, certainly not in normal circumstance but in discussed circumstance, liability upon accused appellants Daulatia Devi and appellant Basudeo Mahto is doubted. So, the conclusion of the trial court in its judgment for their conviction and sentence is not liable to sustain. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.534 of 2009 dt.30-04-2012 5
10. On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstance of the case, Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.499 are allowed, judgment and order dated 15.5.2009 and 21.5.2009 passed against appellants Basudeo Mahto and Daulatia Devi in Sessions Trial no. 412/2006 is set aside. Appellants Basudeo Mahto and Daulatia Devi are acquitted of the charges leveled against them and set at liberty.
11. As the appellant Daulatiya Devi of Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2009 is on bail, she is discharged from the liability of her bail bond. Appellant Basudeo Mahto of Criminal Appeal No.534 of 2009 is in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Criminal Appeal No.583 of 2009 filed on behalf of Madhvendra Mahto is dismissed. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.5.2009 and 21.5.2009 passed against him in Sessions Trial no. 412 of 2006 by the trial court is affirmed. It is made clear that appellant Madhvendra Mahto will be entitled for set off for the period undergone by him during the period of trial or appeal.
12. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court records be sent back to the trial court forthwith.
(Mandhata Singh, J) A.I./-