Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.335 OF 1994 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. *********** 1. Ram Pravesh Prasad 2. Krishna Mahto Alias Krishna Prasad both sons of Karu mahto Both sons of Karu Mahto both resident of village Rama Bigha P.S. Islampur, Dist Nalanda -----------------(Appellant) Versus STATE OF BIHAR ---------------(Respondents) ************ For the Appellant :- Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nachiket Jha, Adv. For the State :- Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. ************* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *********** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants have been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as sentenced to R.I. for 2 years but no separate sentence have been passed under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif by judgment dated 1.10.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 175/6 of 1992/1992. The case of the prosecution is that the informant’s daughter was married to the appellant on 22.6.1986 but she was always harassed by the accused due to dowry and subsequently she died on 30.6.1991. To prove its case the prosecution examined 9 witnesses out of whom P.W. 9 is formal, P.W. 7 is hostile, P.W. 5 is the seizure witness, P.W. 1 is formal. There are five witnesses who 2 are material for the prosecution. P.W. 6 is the informant, P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the informant, P.W.3 is the son of P.W.2 and P.W.4 is the sister of the informant. From the evidence of P.W. 2 it appears that he is hearsay on every point and therefore, the Court below has not placed any reliance on him. Similarly P.W. 3 who is the son of P.W 2 has not also been relied by the Court below since he had not stated before the police about the demand of cash or Scooter. P.W 4 was examined by the Investigating Officer. 2 and 1/2 months later and even she had not stated about any demands of dowry. In effect the prosecution case rested on the oral evidence of P.W. 6 as well as the documentary evidence which has been exhibited as Ext. 5 series. Ext. 5 is letter allegedly written by the deceased but since her handwriting could not be ascertained it was not considered. Exts. 5(1) 5(2) and 5(3) are also letters written much before the date of occurrence and, therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the accused demanded dowry soon before the death of the deceased and consequently death was caused on account of non-fulfillment of such demand. Further in one of the letters there is reference to demand of money for starting the business by the husband of the deceased. Since the onus was on the defence that death was not under unnatural circumstances, it discharged its duty by bringing on record of D.W. 1 and D.W 2 who are on the point of the death of the deceased having occurred on account of cholera. D.W. 1 is the doctor who examined the deceased who deposed that she died 3 in his clinic due to such illness. D.W. 2 is the witness who has proved the death certificate. Under the circumstances, the onus on the accused has been well discharged and there is no positive evidence that the deceased had been murdered and for ends of dowry. In view no offence under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The conviction of the appellants is therefore, unwarranted. In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 1.10.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 175/6 of 1992/1992 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif is set aside. The appellants are discharged of liability of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Patna/ Dated, the 4th April, 2011./ NAFR/Prakash/- ( Anjana Prakah , J.)