Ramesh Yadav and Niriya Devi vs The State of Jharkhand

Hon''ble Mrs. Justice Jaya Roy

The appellants have filed this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2002 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st, Fast Track Court, Giridih, Session Case No. 65 of 1996, whereby he has convicted the appellants u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two and half years.

The case of the prosecution in brief as appears from the Fardbeyan dated 27.4.95 of the informant Ishwar Mahto is that the informant has married his daughter Hemiapati with Basudeo Yadav according to Hindu rites and custom and after few days of marriage, the Sasural people started to torture her for demand of dowry. Further case of the prosecution is that the informant after getting information of torture, went to the Sasural of his daughter and gave further 5,000/- rupees in dowry so that they will keep his daughter properly but the Sasural people continued torturing Hemiapati Devi. On 20.4.95 when the informant again went to the Sasural of his daughter, he found some swelling in the mouth and cheek of his daughter and his daughter was weeping and told him that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, Dewar and Nand assaulted her by putting Lathi in her mouth and she requested her father to take her to his house otherwise she will be killed by them. Next day the informant returned to his house and went to Nawadih again on 22.4.95 along with his village people and convened a panchayati there where the informant told them before Panchayat that he will take back his daughter but the in-laws of his daughter assured them before the Panchayat that they will keep her in proper way and promised not to quarrel with her in future and also assured them for her medical treatment for the injury received by her. The informant and his village people returned to their village. On 27.4.95 at about 12.00 noon a man came to the informant and informed him that his daughter has died. The informant immediately went to Nawadih and found his daughter lying dead on a cot in a Mango orchard towards south of their village and foam was coming out from her nose and mouth from which the informant have understood that the Sasural people of his daughter had killed her after administering poison. The informant has further stated in his fardbeyan that his son-in-law resides at Bagmara and this occurrence has been taken place in his absence. The informant has believed that Bandhu Mahto (father-in-law), Ramesh Yadav (brother-in-law), Niriya Devi (mother-in-law), Kushmi Kumari (Sister-in-law) of his daughter after torturing her and assaulting her for demand of dowry, killed her by administering poison. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan, a case has been lodged and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted u/s 498-A and 304B I.P.C. against Bandhu Yadav, Ramesh Yadav and Niriya Devi. During the trial, accused Bandhu Yadav died as such the proceeding against him was dropped.

The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. Defence has not examined any witness. The defence of the accused persons is total denial of the charges. Further defence is that the accused persons had never tortured or assaulted the victim nor they had demanded any dowry. They have been falsely implicated in this case.

The learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the trial court has acquitted both the appellants from the charges u/s 304B I.P.C. and convicted them only u/s 498A of the I.P.C. Therefore, the only point for determination in this appeal is whether both the appellants ever tortured mentally or physically the victim lady for the demand of dowry. It is further contended that the P.W. 1, P.W.3 and P.W.6 have not stated any thing on the point of demand of dowry, P.W.7 is the Doctor who did the Post Mortem, P.W.12 and P.W.13 are I.O. of the case.

The learned counsel of the appellants has further contended that the witnesses who are relative of the victim lady have only stated about the torture and demand of dowry. Therefore, as they are interested witness, the appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of their evidence.

Mr. Verma the learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out that P.W.4 Jodhan Mahto has very specifically stated in his evidence that two years after the marriage, the mother-in-law, father-in-law and the brother-in-law used to scuffle with Hemiapati and Panchayati was also convened in Nawadih (village of the appellants) and P.W.4 was present in the said Panchayati. He has further stated that in the said Panchayat accused appellants have promised to keep Hemiapati in proper way and there will be no further quarrel or any ill treatment with her. He has further stated in his evidence whenever Hemiapati used to come to her parents, told him also regarding the torture made by the appellants to her. It is also pointed out by the counsel of the State that P.W. 10, Krishna Prasad Barnwal, a medical practitioner who has also stated in his evidence that 15/20 days before her death, he examined the victim lady and found some swelling in her mouth and he treated her. P.W. 11 Nizamuddin Ansari has also supported the aforesaid statement of P.W. 10 and also stated that fifteen to twenty days before her death, the victim lady came to P.W. 10 for her treatment.

I also find from the records of the case that apart from the aforesaid witnesses, P.W. 2 Puran Mahto (uncle of the victim lady), P.W.5 Ishwan Mahto (father of the victim laldy), P.W.8 Degni Devi (mother of the victim lady) have stated in their evidence about the torture and assault made by the appellants to the victim lady. They have also stated about the Panchayati convened at the village Nawadih where the accused persons assured the Panches that they will keep their daughter-in-law in proper way and also promised that there will be no further quarel in future or any ill treatment with her.

Considering all the materials on records as stated above, in my opinion the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants u/s 498A I.P.C. Accordingly, I confirm the conviction of both the appellants u/s 498A of the I.P.C.

The counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant No. 2 Niriya Devi is now aged about seventy years and wholly dependent on the appellant No. 1 and earlier both the appellants remained in custody for nearly three months. He has further submitted that the appellants have already suffered for long time as the case is of 1995.

Considering all these aspects of the case and considering the fact that appellant No. 2 is an old and ailing lady who is wholly dependent on the appellant No. 1, I alter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants to the period already undergone by them and sentence them to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants would undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. As the appellants are on bail, the appellants are discharged from their liabilities of their bail bonds.