Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.159 OF 2001 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 24TH MARCH, 2001 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 31ST MARCH, 2001 PASSED BY SHRI KRISHNANAND PANDEY, 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BANKA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 606 OF 1999 ARISING OUT OF AMARPUR (FULLIDUMAR) POLICE STATION CASE NO. 99 OF 1997 =========================================================== PRADEEP YADAV, SON OF SAJJAN PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOMADIH, POLICE STATION FULLIDUMAR (AMARPUR), DISTRICT BANKA .... .... APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. KRISHNA MOHAN, ADVOCATE MR. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E : MS. ABHA SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT DATE: 13-12-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. The husband, who is the sole appellant in this appeal, has been found guilty under [STATUTE] by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 606 of 1999. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and 2 years respectively. 2. In this appeal, charges were framed under [STATUTE] , however, the Trial Court has ultimately convicted the appellant under [STATUTE] . 3. This case has been based on the statement of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.159 of 2001 dt.13-12-2012 2 / 10 2 the brother-in-law of the deceased Ranjo Devi, who has given his bayan at village Domadih, where the deceased and the informant both reside. Bodhi Yadav’s sister (the deceased) was married to Pradeep Yadav (the appellant) of Domadih village. Bodhi Yadav claims that he had arranged the marriage of Ranjo Devi with his cousin Pradeep Yadav. Both of them live about 10 yards away from each other. It is the case of the informant that Sajjan Yadav, his uncle (chachera chacha) came to his house in the morning of 14.05.1997 and told him that Ranjo Devi had gone to relieve herself and after returning, she is lying in an unconscious condition. As per the First Information Report, the informant accompanied Sajjan Yadav and decided to call the local doctor i.e. Dr. Arun Kumar. The doctor advised him to take the deceased to Amarpur or Bhagalpur for treatment. However, on the insistence of Sajjan Yadav, he administered saline to her in order to revive her. Seeing that there was no difference in her condition, the informant along with Sajjan Yadav and the doctor took her on a cart to Bhagalpur. On the way, the cart carrying Ranjo Devi stopped and the doctor explained that Ranjo Devi was dead. Thereafter, they returned back to the village. When they returned back, the informant claims that Pradeep Yadav was not present in the house. He alleges that when he noticed that there was a mark on the neck of Ranjo Devi, which indicates that her neck had been pressed in order to do away with her life. He alleges that there was a Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.159 of 2001 dt.13-12-2012 3 / 10 3 demand of a motorcycle by the husband Pradeep Yadav. The informant and Anandi Yadav had explained to them that it was not possible to give a motorcycle to Pradeep Yadav. Information was sent to Anandi Yadav regarding the death of his daughter. It is believed by the informant that she had been killed because of the non-fulfillment of the demand raised by Pradeep Yadav. 4. In this case, Pradeep Yadav was the only person who was made accused. The Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined, whereas Dr. Sunil Kumar Jha who has conducted postmortem of the deceased has been examined as PW 7. The postmortem report indicates that there was a bruise of about ½” x ¾” over right side of the neck on its lower part overlapping the right cervical. The opinion of the doctor was that the injury aforesaid could not have been sufficient to cause death as the bruise was superficial and the muscle and vessels of the neck were found intact. The opinion regarding the cause of death was reserved and the viscera was sent to Forensic Laboratory for examination. The Forensic Laboratory report (Exhibit-6) indicates that there is no foreign poisonous body in the viscera. Thus, the medical report does not support the prosecution version that Ranjo Devi died because of the alleged injuries pointed out by the informant. 5. In the aforesaid background, this Court would now examine the oral evidence which has come on record to support the prosecution version. Satya Narayan Yadav is the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.159 of 2001 dt.13-12-2012 4 / 10 4 first witness who has been examined as PW 1 in this case. He has come out with a completely different version of the occurrence. According to this witness, he was sleeping on the platform near the temple when he heard the sound of Ranjo Devi screaming for help at about 3:30 AM in the morning. This witness went back to sleep, later on, in the morning he learnt that Ranjo Devi had died. He accepts that Dr. Arun Kumar had come to the place of occurrence and had administered saline to Ranjo Devi and that she died while she was being taken to hospital for further treatment. He supports the story of demand of a motorcycle and claims that the deceased died because of the assault which took place in the wee hours of the morning of 14.05.1997. According to him, he was sleeping at a distance of about 100 yards from the place of occurrence and that there are about 3 houses in between the house of Ranjo Devi and the platform where he was sleeping along with 7-8 other persons. PW 1 admits in his cross-examination that he was on inimical terms with Satish. Sajjan i.e. the father of the appellant was a Panch on behalf of Satish. The reason for the dispute was that his grand-father (Nana) did not have any so

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.