Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ***** Criminal Appeal (DB) No.31 of 1990 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th of December, 1989 passed by Shri Narendra Bahadur Verma, the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 433 of 1988. ***** =========================================================== 1. Etwari Mahton, Son of Late Mallu Mahto 2. Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto, Son of Etwari Mahton, Both are resident of village Issua, P.S.-Giriyak, District-Nalanda. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Hans Raj, Advocate. Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 07-05-2012 ***** Etwari Mahton and Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 433 of 1988 arising out of Giriak P.S. Case No. 80 of 1987, whereby the appellant no.2 Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto has been found guilty under [STATUTE] and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.31 of 1990 dt.07-05-2012 2 life and two years respectively and appellant no.1 Etwari Mahton has been found guilty under [STATUTE] and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant No.1 Etwari Mahton is father of Appellant No. 2 Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto. 2. The prosecution case is outcome of a complaint petition no. 349 C/1987 (Ext.3) filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bihar Sharif. The complaint was referred to police under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and formal First Information Report was registered. In course of investigation, the complainant filed a protest petition (Ext.1). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against these two appellants and other two accused Sudama Devi and Sanju Devi. The trial court has not found other two accused persons guilty and both the ladies, namely Sudama Devi and Sanju Devi were acquitted. 3. The allegation relates to an occurrence of the night of 19.10.1987 at 8.00 p.m. According to the complainant Gandhi Mahton @ Chamru Mahton P.W.6, his daughter Manju Devi was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.31 of 1990 dt.07-05-2012 3 married to Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto of Village Issua, police station Giriyak three years earlier. The Gauna was performed in the preceding Falgun month. On 02.10.1987 Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto came to the informant and demanded Rs. 5000/- for getting an employment. The informant expressed his inability to pay the amount in a short time. The accused Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto became infuriated and threatened him for dire consequences. When the hot talk by appellant no. 2 was being given then witness Somari Mahto was present. Kari Devi, the daughter-in-law of the informant Gandhi Mahton @ Chamru Mahton, had gone to her parents’ house at Issua. One day prior to the occurrence, she was at her parents’ house. Kari Devi is Nanad of the deceased. One day prior to the occurrence, Kari Devi had been to meet Manju Devi (the deceased) and when she had gone there then she had seen that Manju Devi was being assaulted by all the accused persons, namely, these two appellants and wife of Etwari Mahton and elder daughter of Etwari Mahton. At that time she was being pressed by Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto. Kari Devi cried, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.31 of 1990 dt.07-05-2012 4 upon which she was caught by the accused Etwari Mahton, his wife and his elder daughter. She was bolted inside the house. In the next morning, Kari Devi went to her father-in-law’s house and told that Manju Devi (the deceased) was killed and her dead body had been made to disappear. The complainant was going to police station to inform this but in the way he met with Somari Mahton and Baleshwar Mahto and these two persons also told that they have seen Etwari Mahton and Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto carrying the corpse along with two others and on query Etwari Mahton divulged that his daughter-in-law had died and they were carrying the dead body for cremation. The police did not register the case, so the complaint case has been filed. The complaint on being referred, the First Information Report was registered and charge sheet was submitted. The cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the four accused persons were charged under [STATUTE] . The accused persons pleaded their innocence so the trial proceeded. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.31 of 1990 dt.07-05-2012 5 4. The defence of the accused was of false implication and also that Manju Devi (the deceased) was not killed rather her death was natural and no demand of dowry was ever made. 5. The trial court after considering the evidence brought on record came to the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against these two appellants but the trial court exonerated two other accused persons who were also put on trial. 6. This Court has to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses they are Basudeo Mahton P.W.1, Mani Lal Prasad P.W.2, Somari Mahton P.W.3, Baleshwar Prasad P.W.4, Kari @ Kuri P.W.5, Gandhi Mahton @ Chamru Mahton P.W.6, Awadhesh Singh P.W.7 and Ram Das Yadav P.W.8. P.W.2 has been declared hostile by the prosecution as he has not supported th

Applicable IPC Section: 304

Statute Text:
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, If act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.