RANCHI, India, Sept. 15 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on aUG. 18:

1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.06.2012 (sentence passed on 19.06.2012) passed by Shri Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 2010/ Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 304B/34 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 304B/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The appellants have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Narayan Das in which it has been stated that the marriage of his daughter Anima Das was solemnized with Daya Nidhi Das about 8 months back. After the marriage Daya Nidhi Das and his family members did not give proper treatment to the daughter of the informant. At the time of marriage Rs. 90,000/- cash and other domestic articles were given as dowry, but the in-laws of the daughter of the informant were demanding a motorcycle. The informant could not fulfill such demand as he was not financially sound. The torture upon the daughter of the informant continued unabated and she was left at the place of the informant. It has been stated that on 14.11.2009, the informant and his wife had taken their daughter to her matrimonial house and requested her in-laws to keep her. Despite not being keen, the in-laws reluctantly agreed to keep her. Since it was evening the informant and his wife stayed at the matrimonial house of their daughter. At about 3-4 a.m. there was a cry of alarm from the daughter of the informant and when the informant and his wife rushed to the room of their daughter, they found her cloths having caught fire and she was trying to extinguish the fire. The informant and his wife managed to somehow douse the fire and on being asked their daughter had disclosed that her husband and in-laws in order to do away with her life had set her ablaze. In the morning, the informant admitted his daughter in Ganga Narayan Memorial Nursing Home, where she was being treated.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BFsPPtupSjr4i%2BqhhF%2FTpzzHgmKElVWLOwdl5BsucZG8&caseno=Cr.A(DB)/816/2012&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010126252012&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.