Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.115 of 1999 Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13. 04. 1999, passed by Sri Hemant Kumar Srivastava, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua, in Sessions Trial No. 727/305 of 1992. Raj Kumar Singh, son of Late Harihar Singh, resident of Village- Usari, P.O. and P.S. Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua). .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. For the Appellant. : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate. Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Nandan Sahay, Advocate. For the Respondent State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition that the marriage of the victim Kasmira Devi was solemnised some days prior to the occurrence and at the time of marriage the accused persons, the husband and her in-laws demanded golden chain. Since the complainant was unable to afford the 2 golden chain so accused persons were unhappy and after ‘Bidai’ took the victim and subjected her cruelty. The son of the complainant met the victim several times, she disclosed about demand and subjecting cruelty for non- fulfillment of demand. 4. On the complaint, F.I.R. was lodged under Section 156(3) I.P.C. and after investigation charge sheet submitted. Cognizance taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. During trail five accused persons were charged. However, during trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence apart from documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. Besides documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution a letter said to have been written by the appellant as Ext. 1, Envelop of the letter as Ext, 2, Photostat copy of letter said to have been written by the deceased Kasmira Devi to her parents as Ext. 3, signature of P.W. 3 on complaint petition as Ext. 4 and formal F.I.R. as Ext. 5. On the complaint petition charge was framed under Section 304 B, 498 A and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 3 5. The trial court held that the marriage solemnised more than seven years of the occurrence and hence the ingredient for offence under Section 304 B I.P.C. is not established to convict under Section 304B I.P.C. It also held that there is no evidence who dispossed the dead body to convict the appellant under Section 201 I.P.C. and hence acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 304 B and 201 I.P.C. 6. The trial court however taking into consideration the Ext. 1 a letter of appellant addressed to father and mother of the victim and Ext. 3, photocopy of the letter of the victim and the evidence of P.W. 3 to convict the appellant for offence under Section 498 A I.P.C. 7. However Ext. 1 is letter addressed to father and mother of the victim in which there is demand of Rs. 10,000/-, but there is nothing in Ext. 1 to infer that the appellant subjected the victim to cruelty. However, the evidence of P.W. 3 and 4 concerned, they have stated they learnt about cruelty from P.W. 1 and 2. Hence evidence of P.W. 3 and 4 is hit by hearsay. P.W. 2, though, have come to depose but has stated that his 4 statement was not recorded by the I.O. but by D.S.P. and S.P. The trial court has also held that evidence of P.W. 2, 3 and 4 about torture and subjecting cruelty is suffer from hearsay. 8. However, taking into consideration, though, evidence of P.W. 2 suffers from defect that his statement was not recorded during investigation by the police and hence his evidence is surprised to the defence. Further evidence of P.W. 1, 3 and 4 is hit by hearsay and trial court also taken into consideration the fact, though evidence of P.W. 1, 3 and 4 are hit by hearsay and not admissible in evidence and Ext. 1, though, mentioned about demand, but does not specifically stated about subjecting cruelty. 9. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances that in the same set of evidence other accused persons have been acquitted and hence under the facts and circumstance of the case, the appellant is entitled for benefit of about. Hence I extend the appellant for benefit of doubt as prosecution has not been able to prove the charges for offence under Section 498 A even on same set of evidence. I acquit the appellant from the 5 charge for offence under Section 498 A I.P.C. Hence order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. Patna High Court The 19th October, 2011. NAFR/m.p. (Gopal Prasad, J.)