Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.40 of 2006 dt.02-02-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.40 of 2006 (Against the Judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2005 and order of sentence dated 15.12.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.12 of 2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Kishanganj.) =========================================================== 1. Kaishar Lal Saha S/o late Dhani Lal Saha 2. Chandra Devi W/o Kaisar Lal Saha 3. Chitranjan Kumar Saha S/o Kaishar Lal Saha 4. Niranjan Kumar Saha S/o Kaishar Lal Saha, all residents of village Haldikhora, P.S.Kochadhaman, District- Kishanganj. .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 158 of 2006 =========================================================== Binod Kumar Sah S/o Kaishar Lal Saha, resident of village- Haldikhora, P.S. Kochadhaman, District- Kishanganj. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 28 of 2006 =========================================================== Mira Devi wife of Keshar Lal Sah, resident of village- Halim Chowk Khegsa, P.S.- Kochadhaman, District- Kishanganj. .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 40 of 2006) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Kumar- Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra- A.P.P. (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 158 of 2006) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Kumar- Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra- A.P.P. (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 28 of 2006) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Jang Bahadur Mr. Md. Rashid Alam Mr. Md. Mahtab Alam Mr. Asif Kalim- Advocates. For the State : Mr. S. N. Prasad-A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.40 of 2006 dt.02-02-2012 ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-02-2012 (Per:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH) Mandhata Singh, J. All the above three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they are having same Sessions Trial bearing No.12 of 2003. Prosecution case initiated on the fard-bayan of one Vidya Nand Saha in brief is that his daughter Sarita Devi was married with accused –appellant Binod Kumar Sah three years ago, she lived peacefully in her sasural for a period of six months, thereafter accused-appellants and others started to demand a motorcycle in dowry and caused cruelty followed by assault on her. Same was narrated by the informant’s daughter, when she came to her parents with further disclosure that if they want to see the deceased living peacefully in her sasural, they should fulfill the demand of motorcycle. Informant along with his friend Md. Kurban went to his daughter’s sasural fifteen days before puja, promised to purchase a motorcycle within 2-3 years after depositing its price. On which they (accused persons) assured not to treat cruelly with the deceased. It is further stated (alleged) that on 08.10.2000 at about 5-6 P.M. one Kishan Lal along with Ashok Prasad,the son in-law of the informant came at informant’s house informed him about death of informant’s daughter due to consumption of poison. Receiving such information informant went to his daughter’s sasural Haldikhora where none of the family members was found present. Gathered villagers namely Bishnu Lal Saha, Basant Lal Saha, Jahad Lal Saha and others informed the informant that accused persons were always treating the deceased cruelly for demand of motorcycle. For accused- appellant Binod Kumar Sah, it is said that he was keeping a lady having illicit Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.40 of 2006 dt.02-02-2012 relation with her and on 07.10.2000 at about 9.00A.M. informant’s daughter consumed poison, who died in a clinic at Mahadevdighi. After concluding the trial, all the accused-appellants are convicted for the offence under [STATUTE] . In all, twelve (12) witnesses are examined in the case, they are PW-1 Pano Devi, PW-2 Dayawati Devi, PW-3 Asha Devi, PW-4 Dhaniya Devi, PW-5 Birendra Kumar, PW-6 Gopal Prasad, PW-7 Lila Nand Saha, PW-8 Md. Mofuzuddin, PW-9 Vidya Nand Saha, PW-10 Dr. Faijul Rahman, PW-11 Chandra Bhushan Saha and PW-12 Dropadi Devi, of them PWs-1 to 6 and 8 are stating to know nothing about the incident, they have been declared hostile, cross-examined by the prosecution also, but nothing has appeared in their statement either to corroborate prosecution case or to favour the defence. PWs-7, 9, 11 and 12 are only material witnesses to state the prosecution case. It is admitted case of the parties that there is no eye witness of the case, all the allegations rest on circumstance or presumption under Section 113A or 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Marriage of the deceased with appellant Binod Saha is within a period of seven years is an admitted fact. Now, the allegation is that informant’s daughter was killed for demand of dowry for which she was being cruelly treated is the part of allegations, if is established then only circumstance or presumption will have any role to play. On this point, PW-7 Lila Nand Saha states that deceased was kept peacefully for a period of five months after the marriage, thereafter, there was a demand of motorcycle and on non-fulfilment of it she was being assaulted and lastly was killed after administering poison, but in cross-examination he states about his going to Punjab and coming to know about the incident there Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.40 of 2006 dt.02-02-2012 from son in-law of Sarfaria, he is silent on the point of source of information about demand and torture for its non-fulfillment. PW-12 is mother of the deceased, she states about keeping her daughter with all okey for a period of one year and thereafter demand of a motorcycle and assault, but specifying the same in Paragraph-2 that husband was demanding. Further, she states about killing

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.