Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 201 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Shanti Devi, W/o Chandradhan Bhagat. 2. Chandardhan Bhagat, S/o Late Ramdhani Bhagat. 3. Sunil Bhagat, S/o Chandradhan Bhagat. Both are resident of Village-Amba, Police Station, Kutumba (Amba), Dist.-Aurangabad. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, Adv. : Mr. Ranjay Kr. Singh, Adv. : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy “Raman”, 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 201, 498A and 304B/34 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year and ten years respectively but no separate has been sentenced under Section 498A IPC by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S.Tr. No. 190/92/20/93. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the informant was married to the appellant No. 3 about five years ago and there was no torture initially for two years after marriage but subsequently they started demand of dowry of Rs. 2,000/-. Subsequently he learnt that his daughter was unwell he went to see her then his daughter told him that she was being tortured. Still later while she was in her matrimonial home a relative of the informant gave information that his daughter was very critical and when he went to her house the appellant No. 2 did not allow him to 2 see her and he learnt that his daughter had been murdered and cremated for ends of dowry. 3. The prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 had been declared hostile whereas P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 are tendered. P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased and P.W. 2 is a relative. P.W. 3 the brother of the deceased whereas P.W. 4 is the father of the deceased. P.W. 9 is the cousin of the deceased and P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer. During trial prosecution also brought Exhibit A to A/3 series were allegedly written by the deceased but since they were unsigned and brought on record only during trial they were disbelieved by the Court. 4. The defence on its behalf examined two witnesses who were neighbours and testified that in fact the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain and there was never complaint of demands of dowry or torture for refusal of the same. 5. From the evidence of P.W. 8, I find that he has stated in his cross-examination that he had heard that the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain. Similarly P.W. 7 even though declared hostile had admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain. It supports the defence version in a case of Section 304B IPC, the onus is on the accused persons if it is proved satisfactorily by the prosecution that the death had occurred within seven years in unnatural circumstances and soon before the death the deceased had been tortured for ends of dowry. In this case the accused persons have taken 3 pains to discharge their onus even though they were not required to do so since the prosecution has not been able to prove that death was unnatural or soon before the death the deceased was being tortured for ends of dowry. Further even the prosecution witnesses admitted that they had heard that the deceased had died on account of abdominal pain. 6. Hence I am not inclined to accept the prosecution case. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 06.09.1995 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S.Tr. No. 190/92/20/93 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 25th April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-