CRIMINAL APPEAL No.791 OF 2006 (Against the Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2006 and 23.08.2006 passed in S.T. No. 138 of 2004/12 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Samastipur) RAM CHANDRA RAM, S/o late Bilat Ram, R/o Vill. Gadhi Mohanpur, P.S. Patory, District Samastipur -------(Appellant) Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ---------(Respondents) ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh. For the State : Mr. S.N. Prasad, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH J U D G M E N T Mandhata Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Prosecution case in brief is that the daughter of the informant (Bindeshwar Ram) was married with one Dilip Ram, son of the appellant on 07.05.1997. Sufficient dowry was given at the occasion of marriage as per informant’s status but demand of Television could not be fulfilled and after one year of the marriage accused persons started to torture the informant’s daughter. When the informant came to know about the cruelty, he went to her in-laws’ house and brought her 2 back but again deceased’s husband took her back and demand of Television continued, ultimately, an information was received from informant’s niece that his (informant’s) daughter was killed and the dead body was disposed of by all the accused persons including this appellant. After concluding the trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 304B rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for the offence under section 498A of the I.P.C. imprisonment for three years and for the offence under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. imprisonment for three years. The validity has been questioned in the case and hence, this appeal. The only point to be determined is whether the Judgment and Order of conviction of sentence is allowed to be sustained. Altogether 12 witnesses have been examined in the case. They are P.W. 1 Gunehshwar Ram, P.W. 2 Rajbali Ram, P.W. 3 Manto Devi, P.W. 4 Satyendra Prasad, P.W. 5 Dayanand Rai, P.W. 6 Kali Charan Ram, P.W. 7 Om Prakash Ram, P.W. 8 Rakhia Devi, P.W. 9 Raghunandan Ram, P.W. 10 Ajay Ram, P.W. 11 Mahesh Choudhary and P.W. 12 Bindeshwar Ram. P.W. 1 is a formal witness and proved the formal F.I.R., as exhibit 1. P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 are tendered 3 witnesses for cross-examination and in their cross- examination, they state nothing relevant to favour prosecution case. P.W.2 states about having no knowledge about the cause of death of the deceased. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 though state about burning of the deceased but setting on fire by the deceased herself without referring any cause for her doing so if it can be taken as abetment for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. P.W. 6 states nothing about the incident. P.W. 8 is mother of the deceased though states about death of her daughter due to burning but specifically states about herself setting on fire. P.W. 9, 10 and 11 state nothing relevant to the prosecution case. All these witnesses have been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but nothing has appeared in the cross- examination relevant to favour the prosecution case. Now, the only witness remains to discuss is P.W. 12, who is Court witness as appeared only after noticing by the Court itself. He is father of the deceased and his statement has only been made basis for conviction, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is not sufficient to convict the appellant, as in his own examination-in-chief, he has also not furnished the ingredients of constituting an offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. In this regard, his statement is that 4 his daughter was married in the year 2002. She died within five years of the marriage that was informed to him. He went to his daughter’s in-laws where he could know that his daughter was killed naming this appellant also and further states about filing of the complaint. On the point of cause of death, no doubt his assertion is that in-laws were demanding Television which he could not provide due to poverty but something is lacking to bring the case within the definition of dowry death as causing of harassment or cruelty which the learned counsel for the parties also agree. If there had been this ingredient in the allegation then only presumption under Section 113B of the I.P.C. would have come in play. In absence of the same, no conviction under Section 304B can be justified which is followed by cross-examination of this witness by the defence (para-1) that he was informed then only came to his house where his wife reported detail of the incident, thereafter, he went to his daughter’s in-laws. Further, he states that statement of his wife that his daughter set herself on fire is correct. This much of the statement falsifies probability of involvement of the appellant, who happens to be the father-in-law of the deceased for the offence under Sections 302 of the I.P.C. or 304B or under Section 306 of the I.P.C. if there would 5 have been any abetment even. So, I find the conviction reached by the learned Court below in S.T. No. 138 of 2004/12 of 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-4, Samastipur not liable to be sustained at any corner and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the same is disposed of. Patna High Court, The 8th February, 2010, Shail/A.F.R. ( Mandhata Singh, J.)