Ranjan Kumar Mahto vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellant has been convicted u/s 306 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai by a Judgment and order of conviction dated 28/29.7.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1996. The case of the Informant Srikant Mahto is that on 11.7.1995 at about 7.00 P.M. he stayed in the house of the brother-in-law Om Prakash Mahto and slept there. When he awoke at about 5-6 A.M. he heard some people saying that his daughter had died. He then went to the house of his son-in-law and found that no one was present there and it was closed. He went to the Hospital where he found the dead body of his daughter there. From her dead body it appeared that she had died of sustaining burn injury. He suspected the Appellant who was her husband of having committed the murder since he was entangled with another woman.

During Trial, the Prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom PW-7 Bashishtha Narayan Singh is formal in nature who had allegedly recorded the statement of Amar Prakash, Munna Kumar and Srikant Mahto u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 4.8.1995. PW-1 Dr. A.K. Jha was the person who conducted the postmortem on the deceased and found superficial burn injuries on the person of the deceased which had caused her death.

PW-2 A.L. Thakur is the Investigating Officer whereas PW-3 is Om Prakash Mahto, the brother-in-law of the Informant. He stated that the deceased was married with the Appellant about ten years ago and she died in her house. Before her death, the Appellant used to often beat her because he had an illicit relationship with another woman. The deceased had allegedly come to his house on various occasions with bleeding injuries and he had always have protested at the act of the Appellant. He stated that he was not in his house on the day when the occurrence took place and his family was not informed about her death.

PW-4 is the Informant who stated that about a year ago he had come to the house of the deceased and about 7-8 P.M. he saw that his son-in-law had beaten up her. After placating the matter, he returned to the house of his brother-in-law Om Prakash Mahto at about 9-10 P.M. When he awoke in the morning at about 6.00 A.M., he heard some woman saying that the Appellant had killed his wife, upon which, he went to her house and not having found anyone there, he went to the Sadar Hospital Begusarai where he saw her dead body. Thereafter, a First Information Report was instituted and investigation ensued. He stated that for the first five years his daughter had been kept properly but thereafter Appellant being entangled with another lady, started torturing her.

PW-5 Amar Prakash Singh stated that on the date of occurrence at about 5-6 P.M. he heard some shouts at which he went to the house of the Appellant and found him beating his wife. However, after placating the matter, he went away. Later in the night he heard loud cries and then went to the house of the deceased where he saw that on her body K. oil was sprinkled. She allegedly told him that the Appellant had burnt her. He advised that the injured be taken to the Hospital on a rikshaw and went back home. PW-6 Munna Kumar has given the same version as PW-5 Amer Prakash.

From the evidence of PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6, I find that all of them are relatives of the Informant. They have definitely developed the case of assault in the evening by the Appellant which was not the earlier version as given out in the First Information Report. Since witnesses were well in touch with the Informant even before the institution of the First Information Report one would naturally expect that the fact that the Appellant had beaten up the deceased even on the date of occurrence would find mention in the First Information Report. That not having been done, I am not inclined to accept that even on the date of occurrence, the Appellant had assaulted the deceased. In absence of any direct connection between the cause of death of the deceased with the act of the Appellant, the essential ingredients of instigation required for proving charge u/s 306 Indian Penal Code is absent.

Hence, the Appellant is acquitted of the charge u/s 306 Indian Penal Code. As for the offence u/s 498A Indian Penal Code, since there is consistent evidence that the deceased was tortured by the Appellant, he is convicted for the said offence. However, since he has remained in custody for about nine months it shall be the sufficient sentence in the facts of the case. With the aforesaid, the Appeal is dismissed.