Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 63 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 24.4.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1994/22 of 1994 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. ****** 1. BHARAT PRASAD 2. SATRUGHAN PRASAD 3. BOTH S/O SHIVA NARAYAN PRASAD KASERA 4. SHIV NARAYAN PRASAD KASERA, S/O LATE KASHI SAH 5. SITA DEVI @ INDIRA GANDHI, W/O SHIV NARAYAN PRASAD KASERA. ALL R/O VILLAGE- PUPRI BAZAR, P.S.- PUPRI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Priya Adv. For the State : Dr. Indiwar Kumari APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304-B, 498-A and 201 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 2 years under Section 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. but no separate sentence has been passed under Section 201 I.P.C. and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act by the judgment dated 24.4.1995 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1994/22 of 1994. 2. The case of the informant P.W. 1 is that his daughter had been married to the appellant no.1 on 21.10.1991 and was reportedly murdered by her in-laws on 10.11.1993. 3. The defence of the appellants was that in fact the deceased had died on account of heart ailment and she had been cremated and her last rite had been committed at Gaya, where after the present case was instituted. 4. The prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses out of whom P.W.3 who is the neighbor of the appellants has been declared hostile whereas P.W.4, 5 and 6 also neighbors of the accused persons had been tendered and stated that they did not know anything as to the manner of death of Chintamani Devi. P.W.1 is the informant and father of the deceased, P.W.2 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem, P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. 5. It is noteworthy that the post mortem examination was done on the next day but the doctor had found the body fully putrefied and had opined that the death has been caused within 5 days. Under the circumstances it is difficult to accept the doctor’s theory that death was on account of extensive burn by fire flame. Admittedly also the dead body was found next to a river which is usual in cases of cremation. 6. The story of the bag and the rope is not only absurd but also does not support the case of the prosecution since there is no evidence that the appellants had strangulated the deceased before her death. The court is then left with the only evidence of P.W.1 which is the informant of the case. He stated that he was a torch mechanic and earning 700/- to 800/- per month and therefore, the story that a demand are of dowry of 1000/- and T.V. was being made even after almost 3 years of the marriage is unbelievable. More so, because the informant has conceded that the appellants had brought the deceased to his house as and when it was desired showing that there were good relations between the parties. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 1994/22 of 1994 by the judgment dated 24.4.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities from their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 21st April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.