Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.234 OF 1996 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 1995/199 of 1995.) ---------- 1. BINOD KUMAR MAHTO SON OF RAM BILASH MAHTO 2. RAM BILASH MAHTO SON OF LATE PANCHU MAHTO 3. DHARMDEO MAHTO SON OF RAM BILASH MAHTO 4. GUDARI MAHTO SON OF LATE AKLU MAHTO 5. SHYAM SUNDER SINGH @ SHYAM SINGH SON OF GUDARI MAHTO 6. RAM NARAYAN MAHTO SON OF LATE BUDHAN MAHTO ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KORIANI, P.S. BASOPATTI, DISTT. MADHUBANI. ---------APPELLANTS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------RESPONDENT --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ram Bilas Rai Raman, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. The Appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and five years respectively whereas the Appellants No. 4, 5 and 6 have by implication have been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment, even though, the Court below has not recorded any direct conviction in their 2 regard in the judgment dated 26.8.1996, passed in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 1995/199 of 1995 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani. 2. The prosecution case is that niece of the Informant Bimla Devi was married to the Appellant No. 1 in the year 1989 but he used to torture her for reasons of non- fulfilment of demand of dowry. On 15.5.1994, the deceased was allegedly killed by her in-laws and when the Informant (PW-7) reached the house of the Appellants, he was abused. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 have not supported the case of the prosecution whereas PW-3 is only on the point of search of the dead body. PW-5 is on the point that when he came to the village of the accused persons, he learnt that the deceased had been strangulated to death and her dead body had been disposed off. PW-7 the Informant of the case has merely stated about the factum of marriage and that she was tortured by her in-laws and when he came to the village of the accused persons, he found out that the deceased had been strangulated to death. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer who is on the point that he inspected the house of the accused and found the room where the deceased was living, having been washed freshly with cow dung. 4. On going through the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, I find that apart from oral evidence of PW-7 that the deceased had been killed for ends of dowry, there is no independent corroboration from any source, and, 3 therefore, it is difficult to maintain the conviction of the Appellants. 5. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 1995/199 of 1995 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, is hereby set aside. 6. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 19th May, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI