Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.91 OF 2000 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 139 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 01ST MARCH, 2000 AND THE ORDER OF SETNTENCE DATED 03RD MARCH, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI HARI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGH, 4TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUBANI IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 121 OF 1996 ARISING OUT OF BASOPATTI POLICE STATION CASE NO. 103 OF 1993) =========================================================== 1. SANJIB SHARMA, SON OF SUKHESHWAR SHARMA 2. SUKHESHWAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE RAHDA SHARMA 3. JAHARI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RADHA SHARMA 4. RAJESHWARI DEVI, WIFE OF SUKHESHWARI SHARMA ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANJHAURA, POLICE STATION BASOPATTI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI .... .... APPELLANT/S (Cr. App. No. 91 of 2000) WITH RAJIB SHARMA, SON OF SUKHESWAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANJHAURA, POLICE STATION BASOPATTI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI .... .... APPELLANT/S (Cr. App. No. 139 of 2000) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S (IN BOTH APPEALS) =========================================================== APPEARANCE : (IN CR. APP (SJ) NO. 91 OF 2000 AND CR. APP (SJ) NO. 139 OF 2000) FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. AJAY KUMAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE MR. MD.IMTEYAZ AHMAD, ADVOCATE MR. NRAVI RANJAN, ADVOCATE MR. AMIT KUMAR FOR THE S T A T E : MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Both these appeals arising out of common judgment have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The five appellants before this Court have Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.91 of 2000 dt.02-07-2012 2 / 16 2 challenged the judgment of conviction dated 01st March, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 03rd March, 200 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1996 whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Rajib Sharma, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2000 is the husband of the victim girl Sunita Devi, whereas Sanjib Sharma is the brother-in-law, Sukheshwar Sharma is the father-in-law, Jahari Devi is the grand mother-in-law and Rajeshwari Devi is the mother-in-law of the victim girl. 3. An interlocutory application has been filed in Court, in which it has been stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant no. 3 of Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2000 died. The death certificate which is annexed to the interlocutory application indicates that she died on 03.06.2007. In the circumstances, the appeal of Jahari Devi stands abated. 4. The prosecution case has been instituted on the basis of the statement of Deo Chandra Rai, the brother of the victim girl. On 17.10.1993 at 7 AM, on hearing the news that his sister had been done to death went to the house of appellant Sukheshwar Sharma, where he saw the body of his sister in a burnt condition. He has stated in the First Information Report that his sister was married about five years ago with Rajib Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.91 of 2000 dt.02-07-2012 3 / 16 3 Sharma. It is alleged that after the marriage, there was a demand of television, cycle, watch and a buffalo and on non-fulfilment of the said demand, her in-laws used to torture her. The informant along with his father had visited her but they were not allowed to meet Sunita Devi and a demand was raised by the in-laws. It is further stated that once when he went to meet his sister, he found her crying and the appellant Rajib Sharma, Sukheshwar Sharma and his wife abused and pushed him out of the house. The informant claims that he came to know through Taleshwar Pandey, son of Ram Ratan Pandey (PW 2) who is the maternal uncle of the informant that his sister has been done to death by her In-laws by pouring kerosene oil on her body and thereafter burning her, as a result of which she died. The said burning took place on the previous night. The fardbayan has been marked as Exhibit-4 which bears the signature of a witness Ram Ratan Pandey, whereass and the formal First Information Report has been marked as Exhibit-5. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report, the trial commenced in this case and altogether five witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. PW 1, Ram Jugat Rai has signed on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit-1. 7. PW 1 Ram Jugat Rai is the cousin brother of the victim girl. He claims that he came to know about the occurrence through Taleshwar Pandey and Ram Ratan Pandey. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.91 of 2000 dt.02-07-2012 4 / 16 4 In his examination-in-chief, he claims to have learnt about the occurrence from Taleshwar Pandey and Ram Ratan Pandey at about 5 AM. He supports the case that there was a demand of dowry. He has signed on the inquest report and has stated clearly at paragraph 8 that when he reached to the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer was already present. It is his categorical statement, that at the time when he reached the place of occurrence, other villagers were also there. However, he was the only person belonging to the family of the victim girl who was present when the inquest report was being prepared. He further admits that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage and states that the In-laws of Sunita Devi are richer than the family of the victim girl. The Investigating Officer had also taken his statement. Attention of this witness has been drawn to the statement given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he has stated that he had got information regarding the occurrence from Deo Chandra Rai, the brother of the victim girl. 8. PW 2 Ram Ratan Pandey is the maternal uncle (MAMA) of the vict

Applicable IPC Section: 304B

Statute Text:
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.