Sushil Gope vs State of Jharkhand

R.K. Merathia

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 23/09/2002 and 24/09/2002 respectively by the 3rd Additional District & Sessions. Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 69 of 1998, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty for committing the offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code and, thereby, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30/03/1997, the informant Parmeshwar Gope (PW-8) lodged a fardbeyan at Choudhary Nursing Home, Katras to the effect that his niece Lakshmi Devi was married with the petitioner and she was being tortured for bringing Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as dowry. Ultimately, she consumed poison due to such torture and died.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that at best the appellant could be convicted u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code and not u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code; and that he has remained in jail custody for about six years.

On the other hand, Miss, Anita Sinha, learned APP supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

PW-1 is the Doctor. He found poisonous substance in the: stomach of the deceased but he was not in a position to say whether the death was suicidal or homicidal. PWs.- 2, 3, 4 and 6 have turned hostile. PW-5 is the brother of the deceased, who said that he got information that his sister consumed poison. FW-7- Bijendra Gope is a hear say witness. PW-8 Parmeshwar Gope is the informant. PW-9- Shalu Devi is the mother of the deceased, who alongwith PW-5 (brother of the deceased), supported the allegation of torture for demand of dowry. But this witness is also not in a position to say as to how her daughter died. PW-10 is the Investigating Officer.

After hearing the parties and on going through the records carefully, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. The submissions of Mr. Sinha that conviction at best could be u/s 306 IPC is not acceptable, as Section 304B IPC is also applicable whether the death occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. The prosecution has proved its case that due to torture for dowry, the deceased consumed poison.

In the circumstances, I am inclined to uphold the conviction u/s 304B Indian Penal Code.

However, so far as sentence is concerned, it appears that the appellant has remained in jail custody for about six years apart from facing the prosecution from 1997. Hence his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.

With this alteration in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.