Hari Shankar Prasad, J.@mdashThis appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order sentence dated 30.9.1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi held the appellant guilty under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years u/s 306, I.P.C. and three years u/s 498A, I.P.C. but directed both the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that Sarju Mahto, the informant, father of the deceased Sohari Devi gave a written report before Argora P.S. stating inter alia therein that he married his daughter Sohari Devi in the year 1984 with Laldeo Mahto. Some time after marriage, his son-in-law Laldeo Mahto demanded Rs. 1,000-1,500 per month from him and also asked for giving some employment to him (Laldeo Mahto) and on non-fulfilment of demand, he used to assault his daughter and used to write threatening letters to him. He went to the sasural of his daughter and held panchayati several times. But in previous night, due to this very reason, his son-in-law committed murder of his daughter. On the written statement of the informant, Argora P.S. Case No. 30 of 1995 under Sections 302 and 498A, I.P.C. was registered and after investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet. Charges as aforesaid were framed against the accused on 20.3.1996 and the learned 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi recorded evidence of witnesses--both oral and documentary--and came to a finding and held the appellant guilty under Sections 498A and 306, I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
3. Prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. Out of eight witnesses so examined, P.W. 7 Smt. Balo Devi, Bhabhi of the informant, has been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 1 is Shail Bir Mahto. P.W. 2 is Shyam Dhan Mahto, he is hearsay witness. P.W. 3 is Asha Devi. She is the step-mother of the deceased Sohari Devi. P.W. 4 is the informant of the case as well as father of the deceased. P.W. 5 is Jumauddin Ansari. P.W. 6 is Dr. Niranjan Minz who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sohari Devi and P.W. 8 is Anil Kumar Sinha. He is I.O. of the case.
4. Except P.W. 7 who has been declared hostile. P.W. 8 who is I.O. of the case and P.W. 6 who is the doctor, all other witnesses have on the one hand stated that Sohari Devi was tortured by Laldeo Mahto due to non-fulfilment of money demanded by him and further that his father-in-law (P.W. 4) did not provide employment to him.
5. On this piece of evidence, this appellant was held guilty and convicted and sentenced.
6. While assailing the judgment, the learned Counsel for the appellant did not argue on merit of the case but urged only one point that appellant was lying in custody from 27.5.1995 and he has been released on bail by the order of this Court on 10th October, 2001 and, therefore, he has already spent more than six years in jail and, therefore, this point to be considered for modification in the sentence as he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years only.
7. On perusal of records, it appears that appellant was arrested on 27.5.1995 and he was enlarged on bail by the order of the High Court on 10.10.2001, thus he has already remained in jail for more than six years and the case is of the year 1995 and all these years, he faced rigours of trial and the period already undergone by him in jail meet the ends of justice.
8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent of period already undergone by him in jail. Appeal dismissed with modification.
