JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction dated 9th March 2005 and order of sentence dated 14th March 2005 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC No. IX, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No.132 of 2004 whereby and where under all the appellants were found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, 1860 and further the appellant No.1 Chandrama Devi was sentenced to the period already undergone by her and in addition to that, she was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she was directed to undergo S.I. for two months, whereas the appellant No.2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and in addition to imprisonment, each of them were directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo S.I. for one month and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is also extended to the them.

2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of written statement of PW – 7 Sita Ram Singh dated 29.10.2003 addressed to the Officer In-charge of Sidgora police station, Jamshedpur. Briefly stating the allegations as set-out in the said written application of the informant are as under.

It has been stated by the informant that his daughter Baby Devi was married to Subodh Kumar Pandey (appellant No.2) on 16.05.1995 and she was subjected to harassment for the demand of dowry of motorcycle and cash just after one year of marriage and recently also, she was subjected to cruelty and torture for the fulfilment of demand of dowry and thereafter she was sent to her parents’ house, warning her to come back along with the motorcycle and cash amount. It has further been alleged by the informant that she was taken away forcefully on 25.10.2003 and on 29.10.2003, they came to know that she was killed. It has been claimed by the informant that she was murdered for want of fulfilment of demand of dowry, i.e. motorcycle and cash amount.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written application submitted by the informant, a formal FIR was drawn vide Sidgora P.S. Case No.104 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.1880 of 2003, registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the IPC and thereafter investigation of the case commenced. Further, it appears that after completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned trial Court on the very receipt of the record of the case, farmed the charge on 20.09.2004, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC against all the three accused appellants and further, the lower court also framed charges against two of the accused-appellants, namely appellant No.3 Mukesh Pandey and appellant No.1 Chandrama Devi for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC in addition offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and after conclusion of the trial, learned trial court acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and held all the three appellants namely, appellant No.1 Chandrama Devi(mother-in-law) appellant No.2 Subodh Kumar Pandey (Husband) and appellant No.3 Mukesh Pandey(Brother-in-law) guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC by passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, the learned defence Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assisted by Advocate Ms. Madhvi Nikunj Horo and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, APP appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants:

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 9.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 14.03.2005, it has been submitted by the learned defence counsel that the learned trial court did not apply its judicial mind properly in appreciation of the evidences adduced