Jageshwar Mahto vs State of Jharkhand

The appellant was put on trial along with other accused persons to face charges under Sections 304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they committed dowry death of Gendiya Devi, wife of the appellant. The trial court while acquitting other four accused persons did find the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Gendiya Devi, who had been married to the appellant 7 years before her death was being tortured by her husband and other members of the in-law''s family after the marriage on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. On 4.9.1999 the appellant came to his inlaw''s place at village Tilir and asked for Rs. 10,000/- as dowry and when it was not given, he by holding out threat of dire consequence went away. Thereupon, on 15.9.1999 some of the villagers of the appellant''s village came to the village Tilir and informed to the Uncle of the deceased, Om Prakash Mahto (P.W.3) and other family members that the deceased as well as her husband (appellant) have been missing since last evening. Upon it, the informant (P.W.3) and other family members came to village of the appellant on 16.9.1999 and asked from the family members of the appellant about the whereabouts of the deceased, upon which they disclosed that both of them had gone towards forest but they have not returned back. But on enquiry from the villagers, it came to know that the appellant was very much present in his house in the previous night which made them suspicious and, therefore, they started searching the deceased. In course of such search, they did find headless body of the deceased. Thereupon, Uncle of the deceased, Om Prakash Mahto (P.W.3) came to Pelawel out post and gave his fardbeyan before the police, upon which a case was registered. Thereupon, police came to the place of occurrence and held inquest on the headless dead body of the deceased on the same day, i.e, 16.9.1999 and prepared an inquest report (Ext.2). Thereafter dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (P.W.8) who found the following injuries on the person of the deceased.

(a) Chopped injury at lower most level of neck with its junction with neck at C-8 T-1 cutting completely circumpherancially size about 6" x 7- 1/2 " x deep completely with no evidence of head portion with damage to soft tissues muscles, nerves, blood vessels, vertibra bone.

(b) Lacerated wound right outer upper chest region approximately 1- 1/2 " x 1" x 1" with associated fracture of neck clavicle.

(c) Lacerated wound right of hand approximately 1- 1/2 " x 1/2 " with underline fracture of second, third and 4th phalanges.

(d) Contusion left dorsan of hand approximately 2" x 1".

Accordingly, Doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext.3) with an opinion that death was caused by shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 1 caused by sharp cutting weapon. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed against the appellant to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses. Of them, P.Ws. 1 and 2, Ramnarayan Mahto and Koshil Mahto, P.W.4 Kishori Prasad Mehta, P.W.5 jai Kishor Prasad Mehta, P.W.7 Pachu Mahto, all villagers of the village of the informant have testified that when it was informed that the deceased has been missing from her matrimonial home, they came to her place and asked about the whereabouts of the deceased from the family members of the appellant (husband of the deceased) who told them that both the deceased and her husband had gone towards forest but they did not return. When it was informed by the villagers that the appellant was very much present in the house of previous night, they became suspicious and started searching the deceased and in course of search, they found headless dead body of the deceased. Some of them have also deposed about the demand of money and subjection to cruelty to the deceased. P.W.3, Uncle of the deceased and P.W.6 the father of the deceased have also supported the said fact. The trial court having found the charges being not proved against other than the appellant acquitted them whereas found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was done to death within 7 years of her marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the demand and as such, order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is quite illegal and is fit to be set aside.

Learned Counsel further submits that nobody had seen the appellant in the company with the deceased before the deceased was found dead, but since the headless dead body of the deceased was found, the appellant was held responsible for committing murder of his wife though the appellant, in such circumstances, cannot be said to have committed offence as alleged.

Lastly it was submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence of life imprisonment inflicted upon the appellant is too harsh.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that it is a case of the prosecution as has been testified by the witnesses that when it was informed to the Uncle as well as father of the deceased (P.Ws. 3 and 6) that the deceased was missing from her in-law''s place, they along with other witnesses such as, P.Ws. 1,2, 4 and 7 came to the village of the appellant where they were told by the family members of the appellant that the appellant and the deceased had gone towards forest in the previous evening but when they came to know that the appellant was very much in the house, they became suspicious and hence, started searching the deceased and in course of such search, they found headless dead body of the deceased. According to Doctor, the head had been chopped off by sharp cutting weapon. Thus, under the circumstances, it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that death occurred other than the normal circumstances and that it was occurred within seven years of her marriage which fact gets proved from the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 as according to them, marriage had taken place well within seven years from the date when the deceased was found murdered. A faint attempt was made to show that murder had taken place after 7 years of the marriage of the deceased but the appellant completely failed to establish the said assertion. Further we do find that P.W.6 had testified that he in the marriage had given dowry but the accused persons were putting forth demand of Rs. 10,000/-more. It was further deposed that they kept the deceased properly for some time but thereafter they started subjecting her to cruelty and that on 4.9.1999 this appellant came to his place and asked for Rs. 10,000/- and when it was not given, he held out a threat of dire consequence and went away. This fact has been supported by P.W.3, Uncle of the deceased and even by independent witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 3. Thus, prosecution has been able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant did commit dowry death of his wife within 7 years of the marriage on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and the appellant had even made demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased who was being subjected to cruelty. Therefore, under the circumstances, we do find that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code which is hereby upheld. So far the question of sentence is concerned, we have already noticed that the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. But the question does arise as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the trial court was justified in inflicting sentence for life particularly when Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code does prescribe minimum sentence of 7 years and the maximum upto life imprisonment and, therefore, facts and circumstances of each and every case needs tobe taken into consideration in balancing the sentence to be awarded to the accused. In a case of Hem Chand Vs. State of Haryana, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that punishment of imprisonment for life should be awarded in rare cases and not in every case and that absence of direct connection of the accused with death has certainly to be taken into consideration in balancing the sentence to be awarded to the accused. Here, in the facts and circumstances of the case, though prosecution has established that death was caused other than the normal circumstances but certainly there has been no clinching or direct evidence regarding role being played in causing death to the deceased and under these circumstances, we do not find it a case which warrants extreme punishment u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the appellant, who has served sentence for more than 9 years, is sentenced for a period already undergone. So far sentence u/s 201 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellant has already served the entire period of sentence. Hence, this appeal is dismissed with the modification of sentence as indicated above.