Jharkhand High Court
Koli Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 November, 2021
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 227 of 2010
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 299 of 2010
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2010 and the order of sentence
dated 05.02.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IX,
Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 2004)
------
Koli Mandal, son of Late Dhani Mandal, resident of Village-Karmatand,
P.O. & P.S.- Birni, District-Giridih ...... ..... Appellant
[In Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 227 of 2010]
Bholi Mandal, son of Late Dhani Mandal, resident of Village-Karmatand,
P.O. & P.S.- Birni, District-Giridih ...... ..... Appellant
[In Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 299 of 2010]
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... ..... Respondent
[In both cases]
Heard through: Video Conferencing
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. S.K. Murthy, Advocate
[In both cases]
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP
[In both cases]
-----
C.A.V. on 18.12.2020 Pronounced on 26/11/2021
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.
Heard Mr. S.K. Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned APP
appearing for the State in both cases.
2. These criminal appeals are preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 30.01.2010 and the order of sentence dated 05.02.2010,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IX, Giridih in
Sessions Trial No. 326 of 2004, whereby and where under, both the
appellants were found guilty and convicted under sections 498 (A) and
304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI for
two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under section 498(A) of the Indian
[2]
Penal Code and appellants were further sentenced to undergo RI for nine
years under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Panel Code. In default of
payment of fine both the appellants were further sentenced to undergo SI
for one month and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The
sentences already undergone in jail custody were ordered to be set of from
the sentence awarded.
3. The prosecution case arose out on the basis of the fardbayan
dated 06.11.2001 of the informant PW-9 Dulal Chand Mandal S/o Beni
Mandal resident of village Tilaiya Bahiyar, P.S.- Dumri, District- Giridih
and recorded at 14:30 hours by S.I. M. Hasan of Birni P.S. at village-
Karmatand. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant's
sister, Minwa Devi was married five years ago to the appellant Bholi
Mandal S/o Dhani Mandal of village Karmatand, P.S. Birni, District Giridih
as per Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage they gave Rs.
30,000/- in cash and utensils, cycle, silver ornaments of value Rs 15,000/-.
It is further alleged that sometimes one year ago Bholi Mandal, Moti
Mandal, Rama Mandal and Kokil Mandal demand Rs. 20,000/- and said at
the time of marriage they had given less money. They expressed their
inability to fulfill the demand of Rs.20,000/-. On 15.10.2001 Bholi Mandal
as well as his mother and sister Gunjri Devi, Moti Mandal, Kokil Mandal,
Rama Mandal and the wife of Moti Mandal had assaulted Minwa Devi and
they sent her away along with Rama Mandal to her parental home and they
said that they would not keep her in-laws house till the fulfillment of
demand and will perform second marriage of Bholi Mandal. On 29.10.2001,
the informant along with his sister Minwa Devi, Ram Prasad Mandal,
Ishwar Mandal, Loknath Mandal and Jageshwar Mandal went to the
matrimonial home of his sister at Karmatand. Informant further stated that
matter was managed with help of Tulsi Mandal and other persons of
Karmatand and left his sister Minwa Devi in her laws house. Informant
further stated that Rs. 5,000/- was given to Moti Mandal and the informant
promised to pay the rest amount of Rs. 15,000/- during Holi. On 05.11.2001
at about 05.00 pm, Dhanu Mandal, Sitaram Mandal both of village
Dwarpahri and Ganesh Mandal of village Barmasia came at the residence of
the informant and told him that his sister Minwa Devi has died. On being
asked by the informant as to how she died, they were unable to reply. It was
[3]
further alleged that on this information, the informant along with Loknath
Mandal, Jageshwar Mandal, Bhirtu Mandal, Meghnath Mandal and Ram
Prasad Mandal reached to the village Karmatand at about 09:00 pm. They
saw Minwa Devi was lying on a cot inside the house at Varenda and she
was dead. They saw injuries on her neck, back and near right ear and seeing
them his brother-in-law and family members of in-laws house fled away. It
is further alleged that Arjun Mandal of village Khedwara, Dumar Mandal of
village Barmasia and some people of village- Karmatand disclosed that the
accused persons Bholi Mandal, Moti Mandal, Koli Mandal, Rama Mandal,
mother of Bholi Mandal, sister Gunjri Devi and wife of Moti Mandal had
assaulted Minwa Devi at about 4.00 am in the morning and they
administered her poison as a result of which Minwa Devi died.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Birni P.S. case
no. 84/2001 dated 06.11.2001 was registered under sections 498A and
304B/34 of IPC against the accused persons. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Moti Mandal,
Rama Mandal, Gunjri Devi, Janki Devi and Gitia Devi including both these
appellants under Sections 498(A) and 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and cognizance was taken only against both these appellant. It is pertinent
to note that only the case of the appellant Bholi Mandal and Koli Mandal
was committed to the Court of Sessions and both appellants faced the trial
and the case of rest accused persons were split up. The charges were framed
against both appellants under sections 498(A) and 304(B)/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and at the conclusion of the trial the appellants herein were
convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
5. The prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses out of
whom PW-9 Dular Chand Mandal is the informant of the case; PW-1 is
Ganesh Mandal; PW-2 is Ghanshyam Mandal; PW-3 is Sitaram Sao; PW-4
is Dr. B.N. Das, who had conducted post-mortem examination of the
deceased; PW-5 is Ram Prasad Mandal; PW-6 is Jageshwar Mandal; PW-7
is Meghlal Mandal; PW-8 is Loknath Mandal; PW-10 is Bhudeo Choudhary
and PW-11 is Kartik Prasad Karun and both PW-10 and PW-11 are an
advocate clerks and are formal witnesses and PW-12 is S.I. Permeshwar
Singh. Here it is pertinent to note that PW-1 and PW-3 are hostile witnesses.
[4]
The defense had also examined two witnesses in support of its case out of
whom DW-1 is Dashrath Mandal and DW-2 is Basanti Devi.
6. PW-9 Dular Chand Mandal is the brother of the deceased and
the informant of the case. Informant has stated in his examination-in-chief
that his sister Minwa Devi was married to Bholi Mandal of village-
Karmatand about 9 years ago. In the marriage Rs. 20,000/- in cash, watch,
clothes, cycle, utensils and ornaments were given and after marriage Minwa
Devi went to her matrimonial home and she lived nicely in her matrimonial
home for a year. Thereafter, Bholi Mandal, Koli Mandal, Rama Mandal,
Moti Mandal, wife of Moti Mandal, mother of Moti Mandal and Moti
Mandal's sister Gunjri Devi, started demanding Rs. 20,000/- from his sister
Minwa Devi and they started assaulting her. The accused persons always
used to send Minwa Devi to her parental home but, anyhow they managed
to send her back to her matrimonial home. On 15.10.2001 family members
of the matrimonial home of Minwa Devi, assaulted her and sent her to her
parental home along with Rama Mandal. Minwa Devi disclosed that her in-
laws said until and unless Rs. 20,000/- is paid she will have to live in her
parental home. Informant further stated that on 29.10.2001 he along with
Bhikhan Mandal, Jageshwar Mandal, Meghlal Mandal, Tuklal Mandal,
Loknath Mandal, Ram Prasad Mandal and Minwa Devi went to village
Karmatand and a panchayat was held at Karmatand in presence of Tulsi
Mandal, Bipin Mandal, Prayag Mandal, Ghanshyam Mandal and others and
paid Rs. 5,000/- to Moti Mandal in presence of other accused persons and
they agreed to pay the rest amount Rs. 15,000/- at the time of Holi. Minwa
Devi stayed at her matrimonial home and they returned back to their home.
Thereafter, on 05.11.2001 Sitaram Sao, Ghanshyam Mandal and one other
persons of village Barmasia came to his house at about 05:00 pm in the
evening and told him that Minwa Devi has died by taking poison. On this
information he along with Ram Prasad, Ishwar, Jagan, Jageshwar, Bhikhan
Mandal, Lokan, Meghlal and others went to village Karmatand and they
reached their at about 08:00 pm in the night. Informant further stated that
they saw the dead-body of Minwa Devi at her matrimonial home and her
dead-body was lying on a cot in Verandah. She had injuries near her right
ear, back and neck and the members of matrimonial home of Minwa Devi
were absconding. The villagers disclosed that in the night of occurrence
[5]
Minwa Devi was raising hulla at about 04:00 am and the members of her
sasural had assaulted her. The villagers also disclosed that Moti Mandal,
Koli Mandal, Bholi Mandal, Rama Mandal, mother and sister of Rama
Mandal and wife of Moti Mandal had killed Minwa Devi. On the next day
in the morning he went to Birni P.S. and disclosed the entire facts to daroga
ji and his statement was recorded at Karmatand. Informant has proved his
signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.2.
7. PW-5 Ram Prasad Mandal is another brother of the deceased.
He has stated in his evidence that Minwa Devi was his sister and she was
married to Bholi Mandal 9 years ago. After marriage, she went to her
matrimonial home and she remained nicely in her matrimonial home for
one year but, thereafter, Bholi Mandal, Moti Mandal, Koli Mandal, Rama
Mandal, mother of Bholi Mandal and wife and sister of Moti Mandal started
assaulting his sister Minwa Devi and demand of Rs. 20,000/- and a colour
T.V. PW-5 further stated that accused persons ousted his sister Minwa Devi
and then his sister came to her parental home and disclosed the entire matter
and thereafter, they paid Rs. 5,000/- to Moti Mandal. He again took his
sister Minwa Devi to her sasural and she remained there for some days
peacefully but after some time, the accused persons started assaulting her
for dowry. PW-5 further stated that Ganesh Mandal, Rama Mandal and one
another person came to his house and informed that accused persons had
committed murder of his sister at about 04:00 am in the morning by
administering poison to her. PW-5 further stated that he along with
Jageshwar Mandal, Bhikhan Mandal, Loknath Mandal, Beni Mandal,
Meghlal Mandal, Bijay Mandal and others went to village Karmatand at the
matrimonial home of his sister and on reaching there they saw his sister
Minwa Devi lying dead on a cot. They saw injuries on body of Minwa
Devi, on neck and rib cage and none of the family members were found
present there. PW-5 further stated that the villagers disclosed that Minwa
Devi was raising halla at about 04:00 am in the morning.
8. PW-6 is Jageshwar Mandal and PW-8 is Loknath Mandal and
both are the Uncle of the deceased Minwa Devi. Both PW-6 and PW-8 have
stated in their evidences that Minwa Devi was married to Bholi Mandal 8-9
years ago. After marriage Minwa Devi had gone to her matrimonial home
[6]
and lived their nicely for one year but, thereafter, family members of her
sasural demanded Rs. 20,000/- as dowry and she was being ill-treated by
the members of her matrimonial home. PW-6 further stated that a
panchayati was held at the sasural of Minwa Devi and they agreed to pay
Rs. 20,000/- to the accused persons and then informant Dular Chand
Mandal paid Rs.5000/- to Bholi Mandal and promised to pay Rs.15,000/-
after 15 days. Both these witnesses further stated that when they received
the information that Minwa Devi has died then they went to the sasural of
Minwa Devi and there they found the dead-body of Minwa Devi lying on a
cot and also saw the injuries on the person of the deceased.
9. PW-7 is Meghlal Mandal, who is cousin brother of the
deceased. He has stated in his evidence that Minwa was married to Bholi
Mandal 8-9 years ago and after marriage Minwa went to her matrimonial
home and she lived their nicely for one and half year. When she came to her
parental home, she told him that the accused persons namely Bholi Mandal,
Koli Mandal, Rana Mandal, Moti Mandal and mother and sister of Moti
Mandal and wife of Moti Mandal were demanding Rs. 20,000/-. The
members of her in-laws always used to assault her. PW-7 further stated that
Ganesh Mandal, Sitaram Sao and Dhanu Mandal came to his village at
about 04:00 pm and informed that Minwa Devi has died. On this
information he along with Bhikhan Mandal, Dular Chand Mandal, Ram
Prasad Mandal, Jageshwar Mandal, Loknath Mandal and others went to the
matrimonial home of Minwa Devi and they reached there at about 09:00 pm
in the night and saw the dead-body of Minwa Devi lying on a cot at her
matrimonial home. He also saw injuries on the body of Minwa Devi and
members of her matrimonial home had fled away.
10. PW-4 is Dr. B.N. Das, who had conducted the postmortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased Minwa Devi. PW-4 found
following injuries on the person of the deceased:-
i) Rigor mortis present only over lower limbs.
ii) External injuries:-
i) Bruise 6" x 1/2" over middle portion right side of neck.
ii) Bruise 4" X 3/4" over right side of forehead.
[7]
iii) Multiple small bruise 1" x 3/4" and abrasion present over
both sides of face.
iv) Bruise 5" x 1/2" on right side middle portion of neck.
v) Abrasion 1" x 1/3" over face front of right ear.
vi) Bruise 8" X 3/4" over postiro lateral side of lower portion
right side of chest.
Doctor stated that all the above mentioned injuries were ante-
mortem in nature and opined that cause of death could not be ascertained.
Doctor has proved the post-mortem report which was marked as Ext.-1.
11. PW-10 is Bhudeo Choudhary and PW-11 is Kartik Prasad
Karun and both are advocate clerk and formal witnesses. PW-10 has proved
the inquest report which was marked as Ext.-3. PW-11 has proved the
signature of Aashutosh Kumar, the then officer-in-charge of Birni Police
Station on the formal FIR which was marked as Ext.-4. PW-11 has further
proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext. 2/1. '
12. PW-12 is A.S.I Parmeshwar Singh, and has stated in his
evidence that he was posted at Giridih till 2001. He is well known to Mehdi
Hassan, who has already retired. PW-12 further stated that the case diary is
related to Birni P.S. Case No. 84/2001 and para 1 to 31 of it is in pen and
signature of Mehdi Hassan which was marked as Ext.5. PW-12 further
stated that para 33 to para 80 of the case diary is written by Pemeshwar
Prasad, A.S.I. on which he had put his signature which was marked as Ext.-
5/1.
13. DW-1 is Dashrath Mandal and DW-2 is Basanti Devi and both
are neighbors of the accused persons and defense witnesses. DW-1 has
stated that wife of Bholi Mandal died 8 years ago. There was a ladder for
climbing the roof and the wife of Bholi Mandal fell down from the ladder
and died. DW-2 stated that wife of Bholi fell down from ladder and died.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS:-
14. Mr. S.K. Murthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants has, first and foremost, submitted that PW-1 Ganesh Mandal
is an independent witness but he has been declared hostile. Then, referring
to the evidence of PW-2 Ghanshyam Mandal, the learned counsel for the
[8]
appellants submitted that this witness is also an independent witness but he
has also not supported the prosecution case and he had said in his cross-
examination that the accused persons had not demanded dowry any time
and Bholi Mandal kept his wife very well. The learned counsel for the
appellants further submitted that PW-3 Sitaram Sao is also an independent
witness and he has also been declared hostile.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the evidence
of PW-5 Ram Prasad Mandal, who is the brother of the deceased, pointed
out that marriage of the deceased was solemnized nine years ago. Learned
counsel has further submitted that PW-5 is hearsay witness and his
statement is contradictory to FIR as well as postmortem examination. PW-6
Jageshwar Mandal is the uncle of the deceased and he has stated that
marriage of the deceased was solemnized 8-9 years ago, hence, no case
under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
appellants. Learned counsel has further submitted that PW-7 Meghlal
Mandal is the cousin brother of the deceased and as per his statement,
marriage of the deceased was solemnized 8-9 years ago and his statement is
also contradictory to others. Learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that PW-8 Loknath Mandal, is also the uncle of the deceased and
not an eyewitness to the occurrence in this case.
16. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted
that PW-4 Dr. B.N. Das, who had conducted postmortem of the deceased,
had found some external injuries on the person of the deceased but as per
his opinion cause of death could not be ascertained and did not found any
sign of poisoning, hence, the statement made in the FIR has not been
corroborated by the statement of the doctor.
17. The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that
on perusal of evidences it is clear that not a single independent witnesses
have supported the prosecution case and only the interested witnesses PW-5
to PW-9 have supported the prosecution case but their statements are
contradictory to each other. Learned counsel further said that even
informant PW-9 or the brother of the deceased is also not an eyewitness in
this case and as per his statement marriage of the deceased was solemnized
nine years ago and his statement is also contradictory. Learned counsel for
[9]
the appellants has further argued that panchayati was said to be held in
presence of one Tulsi Mandal but the said Tulsi Mandal was not examined
in this case. On perusal of the materials on records, it is evident that the
allegations made in the FIR are absolutely absurd, unbelievable, vague and
general allegations have been introduced in the FIR with a view to harass
and torture the entire families including the appellants. Learned counsel
further argued that the learned court below has scrutinized the oral evidence
in perfunctory manner and thus erred in passing the impugned judgment by
misdirecting itself in coming to a wrong conclusion. PW-1 and PW-3 are
independent witnesses and they have been declared hostile. So far PW-2 is
concerned he has not supported the prosecution case and he has said in his
cross-examination that the accused persons had not demanded dowry any
time and appellant Bholi Mandal kept his wife very well, but this was not
considered by the learned court below. Doctor PW-4, who had conducted
postmortem examination, has deposed that the cause of death could not be
ascertained and did not found any sign of poisoning and hence statement in
FIR has not been corroborated by the statement of the doctor.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the
Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined and FIR in the
present case is related to poisoning but, doctor did not found any sign of
poisoning and hence, makes the prosecution case doubtful. No specific date
has been mentioned regarding marriage of the deceased and on the perusal
of case record nothing has been seized, neither cloths of deceased nor any
type of weapon and hence adverse inference must be drawn against the
prosecution.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the
prosecution became completely confused with regard to the death of
deceased. As per statement of PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9, marriage of
the deceased was solemnized eight-nine years ago, hence no case under
Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellants.
On the perusal of evidences of PW-5 to PW-9 several material
contradictions regarding death of the deceased is there. So, it is a fit case in
which benefit of doubt ought to be given to the appellants, hence, the
appellants may be acquitted in this case.
[10]
20. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the
appellant Koli Mandal is bhaisur (brother-in-law) of the deceased and he
lives separate in mess and he has no concern regarding this case but he was
also falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of general and vague
allegations and he spent in jail prior to conviction about 4 months and 20
days and after conviction about 1 year 4 months and hence, appellant Kohli
Mandal spent in jail about 1 year, 8 months and 20 days.
21. The appellants' counsel has further argued that the unnatural
death of the deceased cannot be said to be dowry death and for this he has
relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Suresh Prasad Sao v. State
of Bihar (Now Jharkdhand) reported in 2003(3) JLJR 34. Learned counsel
further submitted that the medical evidence of the doctor PW-4 is silent on
the cause of death, hence, the appellants may be acquitted of the charges
and for this learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed in the case
of Bhim Mahto V. State of Bihar reported in 2003 (3) JLJR 265.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:-
22. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned APP, on the other
hand, argued that all the ingredients of Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal
Code are present in this case. The learned APP has stated that death was
unnatural and homicidal in nature and doctor's evidence corroborates oral
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He has further stated that unnatural
death occurred within seven years of the marriage. There is also enough
witnesses which proves the demands made along with accompanying
ingredients of cruelty. Learned APP has also stated that family members of
the deceased have deposed about demand of dowry and related torture
given to the deceased by giving evidence or in cross-examination. Hence,
the conviction of the appellants along with sentence needs to be sustained
and upheld by this court also.
FINDINGS
23. Having heard learned counsel for appellants and the State,
gone through the evidences and records of the case, I find appellants were
convicted under sections 498(A) and 304(B)/34 of IPC. First of all coming
to the conviction of both the appellants under section 304-B of IPC, I find
that informant PW-9 Dular Chand Mandal, who is the brother of the
[11]
deceased, has stated in his examination-in-chief that his deceased sister was
married to the appellant Bholi Mandal about 9 years ago. PW-5 is another
brother of the deceased and PW-6 and PW-8, both are uncles of the
deceased have also deposed that deceased was married to the appellant
Bholi Mandal 8-9 years ago. So, from the evidence of PW-9, PW-5, PW-6
and PW-8, it is clear that deceased died after 7 years of her marriage.
Whereas, condition precedent for conviction under section 304(B) of IPC is
that death of married woman shall be within 7 years of her marriage. In case
of Baljeet Singh and another v. State of Haryana, reported in
(2004)3SCC122, Hon'ble Apex Court at para-17 has held that the law
requires the prosecution to establish first by cogent evidence that the death
in the case occurred within seven years of the marriage. But, in the case in
hand prosecution has failed to prove that deceased died within seven years
of her marriage. Further, Bhim Mahto (supra) case relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand. In Bhim Mahto (supra) case, appellants were acquitted of the
charges under section 304(B) of IPC and this Court had found that medical
evidence was silent on the cause of death of the deceased. In the case in
hand also PW-4 Doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination on
the dead body of the deceased, opined that cause of death could not be
ascertained. So, both the appellants are acquitted of the charge under
section 304(B)/34 of IPC.
24. Regarding conviction under section 498(A) IPC of the
appellant Bholi Mandal, who is the husband of the deceased, I find that
informant PW-9 has in his fardbayan as well as in his evidence stated that
Rs 20,000/- was demanded as dowry after marriage. Informant also deposed
that for Rs. 20,000/- his deceased sister was assaulted and she used to send
to her paternal home by her in-laws. Informant has also deposed that a
panchayati was held and Rs. 5,000/- was given to one Moti Mandal in
presence of other accused person and remaining Rs. 15,000/- was promised
to be paid at the time of Holi festival. PW-5, who is another brother of the
deceased, has deposed that out of domestic decision they paid Rs. 5,000/- to
the appellant Bholi Mandal. PW-6 and PW-8, who are uncles of the
deceased have also deposed about demand of Rs. 20,000/- and payment of
Rs. 5,000/- to the accused. Hence, from the evidence of the informant PW-
[12]
9, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8, it is obvious that deceased was tortured for
demand of dowry and by payment of Rs. 5,000/-,the husband or appellant
Bholi Mandal was to be directly benefited. Hence, charge under section
498(A) of IPC against the appellant Bholi Mandal is proved.
25. As far as charge under section 498(A) of IPC against the other
appellant Koli Mandal is concerned, he is bhaisur (brother-in-law) of the
deceased and he lives separate in mess and he has no concern regarding this
case but he was also implicated in this case only on the basis of general and
vague allegations. Hence, appellant Koli Mandal is acquitted of the charge
under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Nevertheless prior to his
conviction he spent about 4 months and 20 days in jail and after conviction
about 1 year 4 months, thus in total appellant Koli Mandal has spent about 1
year 8 months and 20 days in jail.
26. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction dated
30.01.2010 and the order of sentence dated 05.02.2010, so far as it relates to
conviction of both the appellants Bholi Mandal and Koli Mandal under
section 304(B) of IPC passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
FTC-IX, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 2004 are set aside. Conviction
of the appellant Koli Mandal under section 498(A) of IPC and its
accompanying sentence are set aside. Conviction of the appellant Bholi
Mandal under section 498(A) IPC is sustained and upheld. Regarding
sentence of appellant Bholi Mandal under section 498(A) of IPC, I find that
appellant Bholi Mandal has already undergone more than 4 years 5 months
sentence while the maximum sentence under section 498(A) of IPC is 3
years and hence, appellant Bholi Mandal has sufficiently served the
sentence. Both the appellants are discharged from the liability of bail-
bonds.
27. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 227 of 2010 is allowed and
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 299 of 2010 is partly allowed.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
Dated: 26 /11 /2021
Madhav- NAFR
