Shankari Devi vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2025 Latest Caselaw 3861 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shankari Devi vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 12 June, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                                Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )




                     Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 23 of 1999(R)
          (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
          dated 08.12.1998 (sentence passed on 09.12.1998) passed by
          Sri Vinod Kumar Sinha, learned 5th Additional District &
          Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. No. 266/1994.)

          Shankari Devi, W/o Somar Mahto, R/o Vill- Beko, Tola
          Sundrutand, P.S.- Bagodar, Dist.- Giridih.
                                               ...      Appellant
                                   Versus

          The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)   ...       Respondent
                                     With
                     Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 43 of 1999(R)
          Meghlal Mahto, S/o Somar Mahto, R/o Vill- Beko, Tola
          Sundertand, P.S.- Bagodar, Dist.- Giridih.
                                                  ... Appellant
                                    Versus

          The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)       ...         Respondent
                                     ----
                                   PRESENT
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                                      ----
         For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahatha, Amicus Curiae
         For the State        : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
                                      ----
                                                Dated : 12/06/2025
                                 JUDGMENT

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahatha, learned amicus curiae for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P.

2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgement, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 08-12-1998 (sentence passed on 09-12-1998) passed by Sri Vinod Kumar Sinha, learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. No. 266/1994, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 and Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )

498A IPC and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Budhan Mahto in which it has been stated that on 07-05-1994 at 11:00AM, Itwari Devi had come and disclosed that the sister of the informant, namely Murti Devi has been murdered by her in-laws, who are trying to cremate the dead body. On getting this information, the informant, his brother and the villagers, Nirmal Mahto and Ravindra Mahto had gone to the matrimonial house of the sister of the informant at Sundartand Beko and saw his sister lying dead on a cot. Only the parents-in-law of the sister of the informant were present, who expressed their ignorance of the incident. It has been alleged that the informant gathered information from the neighborhood to the effect that last night, the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased have committed the murder for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. The sister of the informant had, on several occasions, disclosed to the informant and his mother about the demand made by her husband of Rs 10,000/- for business purposes. The husband of the deceased, namely, Meghlal Mahto had threatened of committing the murder of the sister of the informant if the demand was not met. The informant could not fulfil the demand due to his poor financial condition and this resulted in the murder of his sister by the accused persons.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Bagodar P.S. Case No. 106/94 was instituted under Section 304B/34 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 266/94. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34 IPC which

2|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )

was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Bedo Mahto is the father of the deceased, who has stated that after the marriage of his daughter, she used to regularly come to her parents' house and she never disclosed about the happenings in her matrimonial house. His daughter died at her matrimonial house and the persons of the locality had stated about the husband and parents-in-law of Murti Devi committing her murder. When he went to Sundertand, he found his daughter lying dead on a cot. He did not find his son-in-law and the parents-in-law of his daughter had made final arrangements for her cremation.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his daughter had a peaceful stay at her matrimonial house.

P.W.2 Purendu Rajak has stated that he had come to know that the wife of Meghlal Mahto has died in her matrimonial house. At this information, he had gone to Sundertand where he found her lying dead. He was accompanied by Budhan Mahto and two other persons. He has proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. The signature of Teko Mahto in the written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he and the others had entered into the room of Murti Devi where they had seen Murti Devi hanging on a hook. He had not heard any quarrel as long as Murti Devi was in her matrimonial house.

P.W.3 Sukhdeo Mahto is the brother of the deceased who has identified his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-2. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.4 Surendra Prasad has also not supported the case of

3|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )

the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.5 Dr. Bhupendra Prasad Singh was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Giridih and on 08-05-1994, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Murti Devi and had found the following:

(i) Rigor mortis absent, body swollen.

Peeling of skin, tongue protruded.

Conjunctive congested. Bloody foam from mouth and nostrils. Ligature mark around the neck placed below the thyroid cartilage, erecting completely and horizontally the neck ¾" in breath, skin at this side of ligature mark was persisting.

(ii) On dissection- subcutaneous tissue under the ligature mark was ecchymosed. There was effusion of blood in soft tissue along the front of trachea. Hyoid bone intact. Mucosa membrane of larynx and trachea congested and covered with froth.

Lungs in stage of decomposition of purification. Heart empty, soft and flabby liver, spleen and kidney in stage of decomposition. Stomach contained partially digested food stuffs like rice and potatoes and mucous membrane-

normal. No peculiar smell from stomach suggestive of poisoning was found.

Urinary bladder empty. Uterus-normal size (non-grait). Vagina-NAD. Skull-

Intact, brain- liquified. No mark of

4|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )

violence was detected on course of P.M. examination except ligature mark.

The cause of death was opined to be strangulation. The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. He did not find any external anti-mortem injury, except the ligature mark.

P.W.6 Panwa Devi is the mother of the deceased Murti Devi who has stated about solemnization of the marriage of Murti Devi with Meghlal Mahto. Whenever her daughter used to come to her parents' place, she always stated about the demand of Rs. 10,000/- made by her son-in-law. Her daughter was subjected to abuses and assault by the accused persons for non-fulfillment of the demand made. Her daughter had gone back to her matrimonial house three days prior to the incident.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that whenever she had gone to the matrimonial house of her daughter, she used to be properly fed. Her daughter had stated about the demand in presence of her son-in-law.

P.W.7 Teko Mahto is the brother of the deceased who has stated that it was Itwari Devi who had informed him about the murder of his sister. At this information, he had gone to the matrimonial house of his sister and found her lying dead on a cot. The accused persons were preparing for the cremation of the dead body. His sister was murdered due to the non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 10,000/-.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his sister used to disclose about the demand of money made by her in-laws. The house of Itwari Devi is situated at a distance of 100 feet from the house of Meghlal Mahto. It was Itwari Devi who had disclosed that his sister has been murdered and the accused persons were trying to cremate her.

P.W.8 Budhan Mahto is the informant and the brother of

5|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )

the deceased who has stated that his sister used to state about the demand of Rs. 10,000/- made and that she was subjected to torture. It was Itwari Devi who had disclosed about the murder and that the accused persons were trying to cremate her. At this information, he had gone to Sundartand along with his parents and some villagers and had seen the dead body of his sister. The neighbors, on enquiry, had disclosed that in the night there had been a commotion and the accused persons had committed the murder of his sister. His sister had come to his house 8-10 days prior to the occurrence and when Meghlal had come, his sister had disclosed about the threat to her life if the demand of Rs. 10,000/- was not fulfilled. He had gone to the Police Station where he had submitted a written report.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the mediator in the marriage of Murti Devi was the father of Itwari. Whenever his sister used to come to his place, she used to disclose about the demand of dowry made by the accused persons. Before the incident of murder, Meghlal Mahto, while taking the bidai of Murti Devi, had given an assurance that there will be no repetition of demand and torture. It was Itwari who had disclosed that the murder was committed at night and no one else had made such revelations. Itwari Devi had not stated earlier that the husband and parents-in-law of Murti Devi used to torture her.

P.W.9 Arvind Kumar Sinha was posted as a junior Sub- Inspector of Police at Bagodar P.S. and on 07-05-1994, he had received a written report from Budhan Mahto on the basis of which, Bagodar P.S. Case No. 106/94 was instituted under Section 304B/34 IPC. After taking over the investigation, he had recorded the restatement of the informant and had also recorded the statement of Teko Mahto. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at Sundartand Tola in Mauja Beko in the one-storey house of Somar Mahto. There is a room adjacent to

6|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )

the courtyard where the dead body of Murti Devi was found lying on a cot. There was no hook or rope in the room which rules out commission of suicide by Murti Devi. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He had sent the dead body for post-mortem. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses, obtained the post-mortem report and thereafter, submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-4.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not tried to record the statement of Itwari Devi. He has proved the challan through which the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which has been marked as Exhibit-A. The witness Panwa Devi had not stated before him that her son-in-law used to demand Rs. 10,000/- and also used to threaten her of committing her murder if the demand is not fulfilled.

6. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the murder of Murti Devi.

7. The defence has examined two witnesses in support of its case:

D.W.1 Deosharan Prasad Mahto has stated that his house and the house of Meghlal Mahto are in the same locality. The incident is of four years back. It was 08:00AM and he was returning from the river when he met Lakshman Singh. In the meantime, Meghlal came who was returning after dropping his brother at Parasnath. He has stated that Meghlal Mahto did not say anything after he got his brother boarded on the train, but when he returned home, he said that his wife is still sleeping and is not opening the door. At this, he, Meghlal and Lalmuni had gone but the door was not opened and thereafter, on pushing the door, it got opened and when they went inside, they found the wife of Meghlal hanging. When an alarm was raised, several

7|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )

persons had assembled and Meghlal went to the Police Station. After marriage, the wife of Meghlal used to reside at her matrimonial house.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had broken open the door on the insistence of Meghlal. Murti Devi sometimes used to disclose that she is not given sufficient food.

D.W.2 Lalmuni Singh has stated that he was standing in front of the house of Budhan Mahto and Deosharan Mahto was also with him. At that point of time, Meghlal Mahto had come and informed him that despite his trying, his wife is not opening the door of her bedroom. He and Deosharan Mahto along with Meghlal had gone and on pushing the door, the same got opened by itself and on going inside, he found the wife of Meghlal hanging from the roof. Meghlal went to the Police Station to give information, while the wife of Tejlal had gone to give information about the death to the in-laws' place of Meghlal. After marriage, the wife of Meghlal always stayed at her matrimonial house. The deceased Murti Devi never made any complaints against her husband and in-laws.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that Murti Devi was properly kept.

8. It has been submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahatha, learned amicus curiae that all the witnesses have stated about the deceased being kept well at her matrimonial house. It has been submitted that Itwari Devi is the person who had given the initial information about the death of Murti Devi, but she has not been examined. The deceased had committed suicide by closing the door from inside which would be evident from the testimony of D.W.1 and D.W.2.

9. Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the deceased had died at her matrimonial house and the cause of death was opined to be due to strangulation. The appellants have

8|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )

failed to explain the circumstances which led to the death of Murti Devi.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records.

11. The sister of the informant was married to Meghlal Mahto, who had died at her matrimonial house in unnatural circumstances. P.W.1 and P.W.6 are the parents of the deceased who have stated, in their cross-examination, that their daughter was kept well though P.W.6 has also stated about the disclosure made by her daughter regarding the persistent demand of dowry. P.W.8 is the informant and the brother of the deceased whose evidence also reflects about the demand and torture committed upon his sister. The postmortem report reveals that the cause of death was opined to be due to strangulation. The learned amicus curiae for the appellants has harped upon the fact that the door was broken open and the deceased was found hanging by the roof and this submission is backed up by the evidence of P.W.2 and D.W.1 as well as D.W.2. This assertion has been demolished by virtue of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.9) who has categorically stated that there was no hook or rope in the room where the deceased had supposedly committed suicide. No mention has been made about any marks of violence on the door which, according to the defence, was broken open. P.W.9 has also stated about some marks of injury found on the body of the deceased. Though admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses, but strong circumstances thus emerge from the evidence of the prosecution to the effect that murder was committed and the dead body was found in the house of the appellant and there was torture committed upon the deceased prior to her death due to non-fulfillment of the demand. The husband and mother-in-law of the deceased are equally responsible for causing the homicidal death of Murti Devi.

9|Page Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15204-DB )

12. Thus, on consideration of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reasons to cause interference in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08-12-1998 (sentence passed on 09-12-1998) passed by Sri Vinod Kumar Sinha, learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Giridih in S.T. No. 266/1994 and consequently, we dismiss these appeals.

13. Since the appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender immediately and forthwith to serve out the rest part of their sentence.

14. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.

15. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahatha, learned amicus curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Mr. Mahatha within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 12th Day of June, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.

10 | P a g e