Jharkhand High Court
Manu Rajwar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 278 of 2006
[against the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2005 and order of
sentence dated 20.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 353 of 2002]
Manu Rajwar, Son of Shri Khakhan Rajwar, resident of
Village- Udalbani, P.S.- Chandankiary, District- Bokaro.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.
Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated: 06th, January, 2025
By Court: - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 17.12.2005 and order of sentence dated
20.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court-I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 353 of
2002, whereby and where under, the appellant has been
held guilty for the offence punishable under Section
304(B) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
seven years.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow
compass is that in June, 2000 informant's daughter was
married with the appellant. It is alleged that at the time
of marriage, the informant gave Rs.50,000/- cash and
other household articles as dowry. But, after few days of
marriage, accused persons started demanding of
Rs.25,000/- as additional dowry and due to non-
fulfillment of the same, informant's daughter was
subjected to physical and mental cruelty. The informant
was threatened that if their demand would not be
fulfilled, his daughter would be killed. It is further
alleged that informant's daughter was killed by the
accused persons by strangulation.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, FIR being
Chandankiyari (Bangarhiya) P.S. Case No. 46 of 2002 was
registered for the offence under Section 304(B) of the
I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating
Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against
accused person for the offences under Sections
304(B)/201/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of
offence, the case was committed to the court of Sessions
for the trial. The charges were framed for the offences
under Sections 304(B)/201 of the I.P.C., which they
denied and claimed to be tried.
6. After conclusion of trial, other accused persons were
acquitted, but the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as stated above.
7. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against
accused, altogether 22 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution and out of them five witnesses have been
declared hostile.
P.W.-1 : Rajan Rajwar.
P.W.-2 : Bhunda Rajwar.
P.W.-3 : Shatrughan Rajwar.
P.W.-4 : Chinta Mani Devi (Mother of the deceased)
P.W.-5 : Shanti Pada Rajwar.
P.W.-6 : Chaitu Rajwar.
P.W.-7 : Alomoni Devi.
P.W.-8 : Rupan Rajwar.
P.W.-9 : Manbodh Rajwar.
P.W.-10 : Bisheshwar Rajwar.
P.W.-11 : Kalipada Rajwar.
P.W.-12 : Thanda Mani Devi.
P.W.-13 : Kartik Rajwar.
P.W.-14 : Malguru Rajwar.
P.W.-15 : Jhano Devi.
P.W.-16 : Sunita Devi.
P.W.-17 : Gouri Lal Sharma.
P.W.-18 : Nimai Rajwar.
P.W.-19 : Srinath Rajwar.
P.W.-20 : Dr. Ratneswar Prasad Verma.
P.W.-21 : Indradeo Chaudhary (S.I. & I.O. of the case).
P.W.-22 : Dr. Kaslendra Kumar.
8. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary
evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Death Certificate.
Exhibit-2 : Signature on fardbayan.
Exhibit-3 : Post-mortem report.
Exhibit-2/1 : Fardbayan.
Exhibit-2/2 : Endorsement.
Exhibit-4 : Formal FIR.
Exhibit-1/1 : Inquest Report.
9. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false
implication and four witnesses have been examined by
defence. However, no documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
petitioner is the husband of the victim lady, who died an
unnatural death at her matrimonial home. The appellant
has been held guilty in the trial conducted in the year
2005 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the
offence under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. It is further
submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for
more than four years and has sufficiently been punished
for the offence committed by him. It was purely a
domestic dispute and the appellant has no previous
conviction for any offence and after conviction in this
case, he has maintained peace and has not been involved
in any other case, about two decade has been passed from
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence of the appellant and no useful deterrent purpose
will be attained now by sending the appellant to jail for
serving the rest of the sentence. Therefore, this appeal
may be disposed of reducing the sentence of the appellant
for period already undergone.
11. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
defended the impugned judgment and order on the
merits, but he has raised no serious objection against the
point of sentence.
12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment and order in the light of the
contentions raised on behalf of both side.
13. It appears that the appellant has been found guilty for the
offence under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. by the
concerned trial court and was sentenced to imprisonment
R.I. for seven years. It further transpires that the appellant
has already undergone more than 4 years, 6 months
custody during trial of the case.
14. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature
of offence committed by the appellant and also in view of
the fact that more than two decade has been passed from
the date of commission of the offence. The appellant has
also maintained his life as law abiding citizen. Therefore,
upholding the impugned judgment and order of
conviction, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence
awarded by learned trial court to imprisonment already
undergone by the appellant.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this
appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in
sentence to the extent that appellant is sentenced for the
period of imprisonment already undergone for offence
under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C.
16. Appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of
bail bond. Sureties shall also be discharged.
17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent back to the court concerned for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated: 06th January, 2025.
Simran/-NAFR
