Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 103 of 1999 ~~~~~~ Against the judgment of conviction dated 16th April, 1999 and order of sentence dated 17th April, 1999 passed by Shri Surendra Prasad Sharma, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari. 1. Shyam Chandra Mahto, Son of Mahadeo Mahto. 2. Mahadeo Mahto, Son of Late Kishan Mahto. 3. Dhanmanti Devi, Wife of Nanhak Mahto. All resident of village – Hanuman Nagar, P. S. – Chhauradano, District – East Champaran. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ~~~~~~ Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay, Advocate. Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A. P. P. ~~~~~~ P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that the informant had married his daughter Asha Devi with the accused Shyam Chandra Mahto according to Hindu Rites and Rituals in the month of May, 1995 and there is allegation of demand of dowry and for non-fulfilment of the demand it is alleged that on 28.02.1997 the victim was done to 2 death and was cremated. 4. On the fardbeyan, the investigation was proceeded and charge- sheet was submitted. During the trial six witnesses were examined. However, out of the six witnesses, P. W. 1 is the formal witness who has proved his signature on the seizure list, though has stated in his cross-examination that nothing recovered before him. P. W. 2 Gaurishanker Singh, P. W. 3 Shanker Mahto and P. W. 4 Sheoji Mahto have been declared hostile by the prosecution as they have stated that they do not have any knowledge about the occurrence. P. W. 5 is the informant and has stated that he had not given any dowry at the time of marriage and he got information on 28.02.1997 about the death of his daughter and then he came to Sasual and the villager described that she died out of the illness and then cremated. He has further stated that Daroga recorded his statement but did not read over. P. W. 6 is the formal witness. 5. The trial court taken into consideration the fact that none of the ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code has been established. It has not been established that the marriage solemnized within seven years nor there is evidence of subjecting cruelty nor there is any evidence that the death is in suspicious circumstance. Hence, the trial court acquitted the appellants for the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code but convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that there is no evidence that the accused persons did any act to conceal the evidence and there is no evidence that who concealed and who did the said concealment. The case is virtually of no evidence as none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Hence, taking into consideration the entire evidence, except in the fardbeyan there is no evidence either regarding Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code or for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code as there is no evidence that who concealed and who disposed of the dead body. However, it is pertinent to mention that the fardbeyan is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used either for corroboration or contradiction but cannot be used as substantive evidence and hence taking into consideration the entire evidence there was no iota of evidence to substantiate the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the court below is set aside. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 19th October, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.