Most. Ratni Devi and Pradeep Rai Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]d.g.r. patnaik, j.1. since the issues involved in both these cases are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.2. in both these cases, the claim of the petitioners is for a direction upon the respondents to pay them the retiral dues, payable in the account of the deceased employees, namely, the husband of the petitioner [in w.p. (s) no. 2844 of 2005] and the father of the petitioner [in w.p. (s) no. 4173 of 2005].3. the deceased-employees were employed as temporary workers in the work charge establishment. after having completed more than 25 years of service continuously, they had died/retired. the petitioners have claimed the benefits of the retiral benefits including family pension, gratuity and another benefits, payable in the account of the deceased-employees on the ground that a decision was taken by the state government in the concerned department, pursuant to the judgment passed by the full bench of this court, in the case of ram prasad singh and anr. v. the state of jharkhand and ors. reported in 2005 (3) j.l.j.r. 38 (fb), whereby this court has held that the work charged employees working against a post, in regular scale of pay, on their retirement and after their death, their heirs/dependants are entitled to get death-cum-retiral benefits, such as pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc., apart from g.p.f. and group insurance benefit.4. learned counsel for the petitioners informs that the ratio as decided in the judgment in the case of ram prasad singh and anr. (supra), have been followed in a subsequent judgment by a single bench of this court in the case of sumitra devi v. state of jharkhand and others, passed in w.p. (s) no. 6907 of 2007.5. the stand taken by the respondents in their respective counter affidavits in both these writ applications, is that the matter has become stale in as much in both these cases the issues has been raised by the writ petitioners after more than 10/12 years, which cannot be revived again. however, there is no denial to the fact that the deceased employees did serve for more than two decades though as temporary work charged employees but on regular pay-scales. there is no reason, assigned as to why even in the light of the declarations given by the full bench of this court in the case of ram prasad singh and anr. (supra), the petitioners have been denied their claim of retiral benefits.6. in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both these writ applications (w.p. (s) no. 2844 of 2005 and w.p. (s) no. 4173 of 2005) are disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioners individually and take an appropriate decision by recording reasoned and speaking orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and to communicate effectively the decisions, so taken, to the petitioners individually. in the event, the decision goes in favour of the petitioners, then the concerned authorities of the respondents shall also ensure that the dues which are found to be payable to the petitioners including the family pension, are released and paid to them within one month from the date of the decision.7. let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents in the individual writ applications.