Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 121 OF 1994 Against the judgment and order dated 30.03.1994 passed by Sri Ram Nath, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in S.Tr. No. 393/93(S.J.)/41/93(A.S.J.III). ************ Sita Ram Prasad, S/o Chhathu Prasad, resident of Village-Kusapi, Police Station-Tekari, Dist.-Gaya. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 164 of 1994 Uday Prasad, S/o Sita Ram Prasad, Resident of Village-Kusapi, Police Station-Tekari, Distt.-Gaya. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-----(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Humayu Ahman Khan, APP. : Mr. Abhay Kumar-I, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B and 201 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years and three years respectively by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in S.Tr. No. 393/93(S.J.)/41/93(A.S.J.III) by a judgment dated 30.03.1994. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 7, Upendra Prasad is that his sister had been married with appellant Uday Prasad about three years ago but she was tortured for ends of dowry. On 11.09.1992 when he had gone to the village of his in-laws which also happens to be that of the village of the appellants he suddenly heard commotion in the house of his sister. When he reached there he heard suspicious sounds so he got the door opened and 2 found his sister lying dead. He then went to his own village to inform his family members and when he came there he found that the dead body of the sister had been concealed in a sugar-cane field. He then instituted the present case, upon which the investigation was initiated and the dead body was recovered from the sugar-cane field. 3. During trial the prosecution examined eleven witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the Doctor, Mithilesh Kumar Sinha who performed the post-mortem examination of the deceased whereas P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the next door neigbours of the appellants who have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 4 is a co-villager of the informant and stated that he had not gone to the house of the appellant nor did he know anything about the demand of dowry. P.W. 5 is merely on the point that the deceased was found inside the house in the presence of the present appellants. P.W. 6 has stated in his cross-examination that he had never gone to the Sasural of the deceased nor did he know about the demand of dowry. P.W. 7 is the informant and P.W. 8 is the brother-in- law of the informant whereas P.W. 9 is on the point that recovery of the dead body from the sugar-cane field. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 11 is the wife of the informant. 4. The defence also examined one witness on its behalf and brought an earlier First Information Report which was marked as Exhibits- A and B. The said First Information Report is relevant since it speaks of a love marriage of the appellant Uday Prasad with the deceased 3 without exchange of dowry in fact it was in opposition of the family members of the deceased whereas the same was accepted by the appellant’s family. However, the present informant and others bore a grudge against informant of the said case who was the uncle of the husband of the deceased and also he had assaulted him on account of which Ext. A was instituted. 5. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses undoubtedly there is no direct evidence with regard to any demand of dowry by the accused persons. In fact even the earlier case which had been instituted for the offence under Section 498A has not been brought on record and only the order of the case has been brought on record which showed that subsequently a compromise had been reached between the parties. 6. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to accept that the accused persons had made demands of dowry or that there were differences in the family on account of demand of dowry. From the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 1, I find that she did not notice any external or internal injuries on the person of the deceased and the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained so the viscera was preserved. No final report has been brought on record by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the factum of the death of the deceased under unnatural circumstance has not been proved. The fact that the dead body was recovered from the sugar-cane field is also explained since a witness has stated that the accused persons had pretended to take the 4 deceased for treatment even though she had died. In all probability the dead body was left there on account of fear of the police. The story of the informant that he had seen his sister in a precarious condition in the house of the Appellants also does not appear trustworthy. It does not stand to reason that after he had found his sister in a precarious condition in the house of the in-laws he would leave her there and go to his own village to inform his family even though admittedly there were other members of his in-laws’ family residing in the same village who could give such an information to the informant’s family: His presence and his story is thus belied. 7. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the judgment dated 30.03.1994 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in S.Tr. No. 393/93(S.J.)/41/93(A.S.J.III) is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 30th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-