NEW DELHI :- JUDGEMENT OVERVIEW
COURT : Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
JUDGEMENT NAME : PARVATI DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Appeal (Crl.), 574 of 2012
JUDGEMENT DATE : Dec 17, 2021
RELATED SECTIONS : INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Section 201 – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender
Section 304 B – Dowry death
IMPORTANT PARAGRAPH :
HIMA KOHLI, J.
- Ram Sahay Mahto, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
575/2012 (hereinafter referred to as A-1) and his mother Parvati
Devi, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 574/2012 (hereinafter
referred to as A-3) are aggrieved by the common judgment
dated 1st May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand
upholding the judgment of conviction dated 20th September,
1999 under Sections 304B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC
passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, sentencing
them and Nema Mahto (father of A-1 and husband of A-3) to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and
three years respectively on each count with both the sentences
running concurrently. For the record, Nema Mahto had also
preferred an appeal registered as SLP (Crl.) No. 6955 of 2009
which abated on his expiring during its pendency.
- The case of the prosecution as culled out from the
impugned judgment is that the informant, Bodhi Mahto (PW–3)
had got his daughter, Fulwa Devi, married to Ram Sahay Mahto
(A-1) in the year 1997 and within a few months of the marriage,
A-1, his father Nema Mahto (since deceased) and mother,
Parvati Devi (A-3) started to harass Fulwa Devi raising a
demand for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and a Rajdoot Motor
cycle. On expressing the inability of her parents to satisfy their
demands, she was brutally assaulted and threatened that A-1
would be married off to another girl. Thereafter, on information
being received that his daughter had gone missing from her
matrimonial home, P.W.3 rushed to her home but finding her
traceless, he approached Birni Police Station and lodged a
missing complaint. A case was registered by the local police on
th August, 1997 against A-1, A-2 and A-3 being Case No. 71 of
1997, for the offences under Sections 304/201/34 IPC. On
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against all the three accused for the aforesaid offences along
with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Five days after the FIR was lodged by PW-3 on 13th August,
1997, a skeleton was recovered from the banks of river
Barakar, at a distance of about one kilometer short of Village
Sirmadih which was assumed to be that of Fulwa Devi. Charges
were framed against the three accused under Sections
304B/34, 201/34 IPC. To bring home the guilt of the accused,
the prosecution examined seven witnesses, whereas the
accused examined six witnesses. The material witnesses
examined by the prosecution included Dr. B.P. Singh (PW-1), the
doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the
dead body, Sahdeo Mahto (PW-2), brother–in–law of the
deceased, Bodhi Mahto (PW-3), father of the deceased as well
as the informant, Jogeshwar Mahto (PW-4), brother of the
deceased, Tiki Devi (PW-5), wife of PW–4 (sister-in-law/Bhabhi of
the deceased) and Suresh Prasad Singh (PW-6), the
Investigating Officer.
- After a critical analysis of the deposition of the aforesaid
witnesses, the High Court summarized their testimony. Dr.
Bhupendra Prasad Singh (PW–1) deposed that he had
conducted the autopsy of the dead body produced before him
as that of Fulwa Devi and found the body to be highly
decomposed. The left leg, left forearm and left hand were
absent. Similarly, the right upper limb and right lower limb
below the knee joint were absent. No evidence of any ante-
mortem injury was found. The time that had elapsed till the
post-mortem examination was conducted, was assessed as one
week.
DOWNLOAD FULL JUDGEMENT :- CLICK HERE
PARVATI DEVI