Jharkhand High Court
Kedar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2025
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 901 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction 21.06.2006 and Order of
sentence dated 22.06.2006 passed by learned 5th Additional
Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2005
/ 98 of 2003 ]
1. Kedar Mandal, Son of Nunulal Mandal.
2. Sushila Devi, Wife of Nunulal Mandal.
3. Gangia Devi, Wife of Kedar Mandal.
All resident of Village - Narayanpur, P.S. -
Narayanpur, District - Jamtara.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
WITH
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1308 of 2006
Deo Narayan Mandal, Son of Nunu Lal Mandal, resident
of Village - Narayanpur, P.S.-Narayanpur, District -
Jamtara.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 24.01.2025 Pronounced on 27.01.2025
Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.K.
Srivastava, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Appellants of both the criminal appeals have
challenged the judgment of conviction dated
21.06.2006 and order of sentence dated 22.06.2006
passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T.C.), Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2005 / 98
of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have
been held guilty for the offence under Sections 304B /
34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
seven years.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is that
daughter of the informant namely, Chameli Devi
(deceased) was married with the one Deo Narayan
Mondal (appellant in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 1308/2006) in the
year 1999 in accordance with Hindu rites and
customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, as
per capacity, dowry was given and informant's
daughter went to her matrimonial home and started
discharging her matrimonial obligations and also gave
birth to female child. After birth of female child, a
demand of Rs. 5,000/- was raised from her as an
additional dowry, which could not be fulfilled, due to
poverty of informant. As a result of which, the
deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture by all
the accused persons and ousted from matrimonial
home several times. It is alleged that ultimately on
01.06.2002 at about 5:00 PM a message was given to
the informant that his daughter has been admitted at
Narayanpur Hospital, due to diarrhoea. The informant
went to said Hospital, but did not find his daughter
and when he went to her matrimonial home, where his
daughter dead body was lying on a cot and there was
black ligature mark on her neck. Her in-laws were
absconding from the house.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, FIR being
Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2002 dated
01.06.2002 was registered against the accused persons
for the offence under Sections 304B read with Section
34 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case
has submitted charge sheet. Cognizance of the offence
was taken and subsequently, the case was committed
to the court of Sessions. Charges have been framed for
the offences under Sections 304B/34 and 302/34 of
the I.P.C., to which the accused persons denied the
charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against
accused persons, altogether nine witnesses were
examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral
evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary
evidences were also adduced:-
Exhibit-1 : Signature of Jagdish Mondal &
& 1/1 Sital Mondal respectively on
fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 : Signature of witnesses on
& 2/1 inquest report.
Exhibit-3 : Fardbeyan.
Exhibit-4 : Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit-5 : Inquest report.
Exhibit-6 : Post-mortem report of Chameli
Devi.
8. On the other hand, the defence has also examined five
witnesses and also adduced following documents:-
Exhibit-A : Invitation card of marriage of
& A/1 Chameli Devi and it's envelop
respectively.
Exhibit- : Invitation card along with
A/2 envelope of the marriage of
Chameli Devi.
Exhibit-B : Invitation card of marriage of
Tejeshwar with Malti Devi.
Exhibit-C : Prescription of Chameli Devi.
9. After conclusion of trial, considering the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and defence, acquitted
the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 of
the I.P.C., but convicted and sentenced for the offence
under Section 304B / 34 of the I.P.C., which has been
assailed in these appeals.
Argument on behalf of appellants in Cr.A.(S.J.) No.
901 of 2006
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently
argued that the appellants happened to be bhaisur,
mother-in-law and gotni of the deceased, against
whom there was general and omnibus allegation
simply demand of Rs. 5,000/-, but there is no
evidence at all that the present appellants had ever
subjected the deceased to cruelty soon before her
death and no specific overt act has been attributed
against them. The real fact is that bhaisur, mother-in-
law and gotni of the deceased were separate in mess
and resident and have no connection in the
matrimonial affairs between the deceased and her
husband. The F.I.R. was lodged by father of the
deceased, who has stated nothing against these
appellants showing their any specific overt act.
Similarly, other witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution have also not been able to say date, day,
time or demand of dowry of Rs. 5,000/- by the
present appellants and any ill-treatment or torture
meted to the deceased at the hands of these
appellants. The learned trial court has sued upon the
general and omnibus allegation, who are interested
witnesses to robe falsely all the family members in
order to satisfy their vengeance. The appellant no. 2
namely, Sushila Devi is more than 87 years of age and
cannot move freely and discharge her pursuit of life.
Similarly, appellant no. 1 namely, Kedar Mandal and
appellant no. 3 namely, Gangia Devi have also no
relation with the alleged occurrence and convicted
and sentenced without any cogent and reliable
evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence of appellants is
absolutely not justified under law and is fit to be set
aside, by allowing their appeal.
I.A. No. 394 of 2025 in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 901 of 2006
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the instant interlocutory application under Section
430(1) of B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of the
appellants for grant of bail after suspension of
sentence during pendency of the appeal.
Argument on behalf of appellant in Cr.A.(S.J.) No.
1308 of 2006
12. It is further submitted that appellant, who is the
husband of the deceased, has been falsely implicated
in this case. There was cordial relationship between
husband and wife and also with all the family
members and they were blessed with one female child.
There was general and omnibus allegation against all
the accused persons. There was no eye-witness to the
alleged occurrence and the trial court has proceeded
to convict the appellant on the basis of hearsay
evidence. The trial court has also failed to appreciate
that the prosecution witnesses could not substantiate
the allegation of demand of dowry and after
considering the prosecution as well as defence
evidence, the trial court has acquitted the appellant
for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C., but
has erroneously convicted him for the offence
punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of the I.P.C.
Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence of appellant is absolutely not
justified under law and is fit to be set aside, by
allowing his appeal.
13. In alternative, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the appellant, who is the husband of
the deceased, has undergone imprisonment for more
than half of the period imposed by the trial court.
Learned counsel further explains that the appellant
has been sentenced to undergo seven years
imprisonment and the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about five years. Therefore,
appellant may be awarded sentence of imprisonment
already undergone instead of awarding the sentence
as granted by the concerned trial court, if his
conviction is upheld by the Hon'ble Court.
14. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has
opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of
the appellants and has submitted that the trial court
has very wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and
appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record and arrived at right conclusion
holding the appellants to be guilty for the offences
charged against him and adequately passed the order
of sentence. There is no illegality and infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order, which calling for any
interference, by way of these appeals, which are
devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.
15. I have gone through the record the case along with
impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised
on behalf of both side.
16. It appears that the first information was lodged in the
year 2002 for the offence under Sections 304B/34 of
the I.P.C. against the appellants, but the accused
persons had faced the trial for the offence under
Sections 304B/34 as well as Sections 302/34 of the
I.P.C., but the trial court after evaluating and
appreciating the evidence available on record has
acquitted from the charges under Sections 302/34 of
the I.P.C. and has convicted the appellants for the
offence under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C.
17. For better appreciation of the case, a brief resume of
oral testimony of witnesses is required to be
discussed.
18. P.W.-1 Sital Mondal - is the uncle of the deceased
and got information that his niece has dead due to
diarrohoea. Thereafter, he went to Narayanpur
Hospital, but got information that no patient was
brought in the name of Chameli Devi (deceased).
Thereafter, he went to the matrimonial house of the
deceased and found the dead body of Chameli Devi
lying on the cot. He has not stated that whether the
husband of the deceased was living separately or in
the joint family.
19. P.W.-2 Rekha Devi - is the mother of the deceased.
He has stated the same line as P.W.-1 has stated in
his evidence, but was not asked any question
regarding the jointness of the family.
20. P.W.-3 Teklal Mondal - is the brother of the deceased
and also a hearsay witness. He deposed that he had
gone to the house of the deceased after his father,
mother and uncle had gone and when he reached
there, the door of the house was closed.
21. P.W.-4 Jagdish Mondal - is the father and informant
of this case. In his evidence, he has stated in the
same line as stated in his fardbeyan and supported
the FIR. But prosecution has not asked the question
regarding the jointness of the family of the deceased.
22. P.W.-5 Lilu Mondal - is the witness, who has proved
the Inquest Report. He has deposed that on the date
of occurrence, he had heard the sound of quarreling
in the house of deceased, but has not stated that he
has seen the incident.
23. P.W.-6 Doman Mallah - is the villager of the
matrimonial house of the deceased. He has stated in
para-2 that he had heard about the death of the
deceased when he came to his house at the evening,
but has not gone to her house.
24. P.W.-7 Bhim Rajwar - has been declared hostile and
nothing has been found which support the case of
prosecution.
25. P.W.-8 Chandra Prasad - is the I.O. of this case, who
has proved the fardbeyan (Exhibit-3) is in his
handwriting. He also proved the endorsement of then
Officer-in-Charge Madan Mohan on the fardbeyan. He
further deposed that when he went to the house of the
deceased, he found the dead body of the deceased was
lying on a cot inside the house. He further deposed
that family members of the deceased were not present
at that time in their home. He after preparing the
Inquest Report sent the dead body for the post-
mortem. He further stated that witnesses have stated
before him that on the date of incident deceased had
gone to jungle for fire wood in the noon at 2½ hours
and in the evening, there was quarrel amongst the
family of the deceased. However, he has replied in the
negative that witness before him have stated that
other family members such as father-in-law, mother-
in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law were used to
quarrel with deceased regarding demand of dowry.
26. P.W.-9 Dr. Sambhu Nath Sinha - is the Doctor, who
has conducted the autopsy of the deceased and has
proved the Post-mortem report, which has been
marked as Exhibit-6 and found followings:-
(i) Ligature mark seen upon the neck at the level of
thyroid cartilage completely except at one point
on the nape of neck (behind the neck). On
dissection - ligature mark dry, white, not too
much grooved.
(ii) Bruise and abrasion present near ligature.
He has opined the cause of death is "due to
asphyxia due to strangulation caused by a
ligature".
27. From the discussion of testimony of above witnesses,
it is quite clear that the allegation against the
appellants of Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 901/2006 namely, Kedar
Mandal, Sushila Devi and Gangia Devi is general and
omnibus for demand of additional dowry of Rs.
5,000/-, but there is no evidence at all that the
present appellants, who were separate in mess and
residence, had ever subjected the deceased to cruelty
soon before her death and no specific overt act has
been attributed against the appellants, who were
bhaisur, mother-in-law and gotni of the deceased.
28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I
find force in the argument of learned counsel for the
appellants in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 901 / 2006. Accordingly,
the impugned judgment of conviction dated
21.06.2006 and order of sentence dated 22.06.2006
passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T.C.), Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2005 /
98 of 2003, so far appellants namely, Kedar Mandal,
Sushila Devi and Gangia Devi are concerned, is
hereby set aside.
29. So far appellant in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 1308/2006 namely,
Deo Narayan Mandal is concerned, admittedly he was
husband of the deceased and there was demand of
additional dowry of Rs. 5,000/- and also the deceased
died unnatural death within seven years of her
marriage. The death was due to strangulation.
Therefore, on merits, I find no reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment of conviction, so far
appellant-Deo Narayan Mondal is concerned.
30. So far sentence of appellant-Deo Narayan Mondal is
concerned, he has been awarded sentence of seven
years R.I., out of which, he has undergone about five
years custody during trial of the case.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears
that appellant has sufficiently been punished for his
guilt and more than two decades has been elapsed
from the date of occurrence and further incarceration
of the appellant would not meet any fruitful result or
have any deterrent effect in this peculiar case.
Therefore, the sentence of Deo Narayan Mondal
(appellant in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 1308 of 2006) is reduced
to the imprisonment already undergone instead of
seven years R.I. as awarded by the concerned trial
court.
32. In view of the above, Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 901 of 2006 filed
on behalf of appellants namely, Kedar Mandal,
Sushila Devi and Gangia Devi is allowed and
Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 1308 of 2006 filed on behalf of
appellant namely, Deo Narayan Mandal is dismissed
on merits with modification in sentence as stated
above.
33. So far pending I.A. i.e. I.A. No. 394 of 2025 in
Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 901 of 2006, which is for grant of bail
of appellants after suspension of sentence, who have
been arrested in this case due to cancellation of their
suspension of sentence order earlier passed in this
case, is hereby disposed of in view of acquittal of
appellants.
34. Appellants are in judicial custody, as such, trial court
is directed to release the appellants forthwith from the
judicial custody, if not wanted in any other case.
35. I.A. No. 395 of 2025 filed in Cr.A.(S.J.) No. 1308
of 2006 also stands disposed of.
36. 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 : 27th January, 2025
Sunil /N.A.F.R.
