IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.226 of 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 12.08.1997 passed by Sri Mahesh Pd. Tiwari, 1st Additional Sessions Judge Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 115/19 of 1994. 1. Ram Daie Devi widow of Tej Narain Thakur. 2. Lalan Kumar Thakur. 3. Baban Kumar Thakur, sons of late Tej Narain Thakur, all residents of village Bajitpur P.S. Sarairanjan District Samastipur .... .... Appellants Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondents With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 277 of 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 12.08.1997 passed by Sri Mahesh Prasad Tiwari, 1st Additional Sessions Judge Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 115/19 of 1997. Gopal Krishna Thakur son of Tej Narain Thakur resident of village Bajitpur P.S. Sarairanjan, district Samastipur(accused in court below) ... .... Appellant. Versus The State Of Bihar ... Respondent. For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad Thakur, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P. PRESENT THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offences under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year respectively by the First Additional Sessions Judge Samastipur by a judgment dated 12.08.1997 in Sessions Trial No. 115/19 of 1994. 2. The case of the prosecution according to Tej Narain Thakur father of the deceased Vibha Devi is that his daughter had been married to appellant Gopal Krishna Thakur three and half years before her death and whenever the informant met the deceased, he was told that her in laws used to harass the deceased for demand of dowry. Further, they had threatened that if the demand made by them was not fulfilled she would be murdered. It was alleged that on 11.07.1993 he had gone to meet his daughter then he was informed by a girl that his daughter was dead and she was cremated. 3. During trial the prosecution examined ten witnesses on his behalf, whereas three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. P.W. 8 and 9 are the formal witnesses, who have proved the First Information Report and the case diary of the prosecution case. P.W. 1 Mitra Mumar Thakur is the nephew of the informant who merely stated that when uncle the informant called him, he went the police station and as per his dictates he wrote down the written report which was handed over to the officer for institution of the present case. According to him the marriage of deceased took place five years ago but he never visited Sasural of the deceased nor he had information about occurrence and he had written the report as per the dictates of his uncle (P.W.2). P.W. 3 Kulanand Thakur is the hearsay witness, who also is a nephew of the informant and said that the deceased was tortured for the ends of dowry and that the marriage place in the year 1985. P.W. 4 Mahendra Narain Thakur stated that he had accompanied the informant, the nephew and he had been informed by him that the deceased had been assailed for demands of dowry. Neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 2 nor P.W. 3 or P.W. 4 have given any direct evidence with regard to demands of dowry by the accused person. P.W. 2 is the informant father of the deceased who stated in court that his daughter was married three and half years ago and dowry had been given to the in laws and after the Gauna the deceased was living in Sasural. He stated that T.V. and Motor cycle had remained to be given as dowry and for this reason on account of non-fulfillment of these two articles the deceased was being assaulted by her in laws. The deceased also had told him about torture being meted out to her. In concluding paragraph, he stated on the date of occurrence that when he visited the house of the appellants a girl told him that deceased had died and she had been cremated whereafter he went to the police station on the next day with P.W. 1 and instituted the present case. P.W. 5 the resident of the village of the appellants and he stated that he heard that the wife of appellant Gopal Krishan Thakur had died but how he did not know. He stated that the appellants never demanded any dowry and deceased was never tortured for non-fulfillment of the same. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.6 Surendra Sah stated she also a resident of the village of the appellants has stated that he had seen the dead body of the deceased in a burnt condition and he stated that the in-laws never demanded any dowry nor cremated the deceased. These witnesses were also declared hostile. P.W. 7 has stated that he had seen the deceased had died while cooking meal and that the appellants never demanded any dowry nor they misbehaved with her. 4. Defence witness no. 1 stated that he acted as Purohit of the marriage of the deceased with appellant and that had taken place on 17.02.1985 that is about eight years ago. D.W. 2 had also stated that the marriage had taken place in the year 1985 and he attended the same and it was ideal marriage without dowry and the Duragawan was in the year 1990 in which he had also participated. He stated that the deceased was his sister through the village relationship. D.W. 3 Arun Kumar Jha is a compounded of doctor who stated that they were informed that the deceased was in a critical condition and when he arrived at the house of the appellant they saw deceased lying with the burn injuries. They advised some medicines also and that he should be taken to Samastipur hospital but later declared death by the doctor even before she could be given treatment. He stated that deceased had said that her Sari caught fire when Dibiya fell on her while she was cooking. 5. On clear analysis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution it appears that P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are witnesses of the village of the accused persons, none of them had supported the fact that the accused persons had ever demanded dowry or that the deceased had been tortured for demand of dowry. It is noteworthy that while P.W. 5, P.W. 6 were declared hostile the evidence deposition of P.W. 7 was accepted by the prosecution. 6. It is also relevant that in the fardbeyan it has only been stated that the accused persons were assaulting on the deceased but it was not stated that the assault was for reasons of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The attention of P.W. 10 investigating officer was drawn that P.W. 2 informant had not stated before him that deceased was tortured by her in-laws for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. On a consideration of the entire evidence discussed above and that there were trustworthy defence witnesses who testified that the deceased had in fact died on account of on accidental fire as also the non-support by any other witness including the close relatives of the informant i.e. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. on point of demand of dowry, I am inclined to set aside the conviction of the appellants. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed and the appellants are discharged of the liability of this bail bonds. Patna High Court, Patna (Anjana Prakash, J.) Dated 14th July 2011 N.A.F.R./Devendra/