IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.427 of 2010 PIRIT YADAV, S/o. late Bhanu Yadav, r/o. Village- Majhanpur, P.S. Sherghati, District- Gaya (informant-victim) -------- Appellant. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Sanoj Yadav, S/o. Nago Yadav, 3. Nago Yadav, S/o. late Bal Govind Yadav, 4. Barho Devi, W/o. Nago Yadav, ---------- Respondents. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S.Jamil Akhtar,........Advocate. Counsel for the State: Mr. S.N. Prasad, ........... Addl. P.P. 04. 25.11. 2010 This is an appeal against acquittal and was heard at the admission stage. This appeal is against the judgment dated 30.04.2010 of the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gaya as passed under Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2009/556 of 2008, whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 who were the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased were tried for the charge under Section 304B/34 of I.P.C. were acquitted of the charge. The P.W.8 Prit Yadav, the father of the deceased lodged F.I.R. on 17.08.2007 stating that he had married his daughter Siranti Devi (deceased) to O.P. No.1 Sanoj Yadav and that he had given articles in gift to the bride-groom in the marriage but the in- laws were not satisfied with the quality of the goods 2 and they insisted for returning and exchanging the same and that they were also insisting for purchase of articles according to their choice and that they were also demanding motorcycle. It was stated that once O.P. Nago Yadav had come to his village and threatened to face bad consequences if motorcycle was not given to him. He further alleged that on 17.08.2008 he received information that his daughter had died due to electrocution and that receiving this information he went to his daughter’s matrimonial house and there he found that dead body was lying in the village. He also stated that there was a black mark on the neck and a tooth was also broken due to which he guessed that she had been killed by way of throttling. As many as ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Guddu Yadav and P.W.3 were the uncles of the deceased. P.W.2 Sukhdeo Yadav was the brother of the deceased. P.W.4 Sitaram Yadav was the cousin of the deceased. P.W.5 Anchhi Devi was the mother of the deceased. 3 P.W.8 Put Yadav, the informant was the father of the deceased. P.W.6 Kali Yadav and P.W.7 Vijay Prasad were the co-villagers. P.W.9 Dr. Arvind Prasad, the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body. P.W.10 Ramnath Yadav was the investigating officer of the case. As to the demand of dowry and causing of torture and harassment for demand of dowry the prosecution examined witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 who all stated that on receiving information about electrocution they had gone to deceased’s matrimonial village and they had found that the dead body was lying in a barren field and there was black mark on her neck and that they opined that the deceased had been killed by way of throttling. Thus it was the case of these witnesses that the cause of death was throttling because black mark was found on the neck. Besides this these witnesses also stated that electric transmission wire was found there fallen near the dead body of the 4 deceased in the filed. It has to be mentioned here that it was the case of the defence that the deceased had gone out for attending her natural call and in course of that she got electrocuted due to touching the electric transmission cable fallen on the ground. The I.O. (P.W.10) has also found that electric transmission cable was found fallen near the dead body of the deceased and that at a distance of 25 yards from that place the electric pump cabin of the O.Ps. 2 to 4 was situated. Learned trial-court considered that the evidence of the doctor (P.W.9) who conducted the post mortem examination did not find any ante mortem injury on the dead body except a bitten lateral margin of tongue under left canine of 1 mm. X 1 mm. The cause of death was stated to be shock and trauma and for further examination the viscera of the deceased was presumed and it was sent for chemical examination. But during trial any chemical examination report was not produced to show any other cause of death. It was considered by the 5 learned trial-court that the witnesses stated that they had found black marks on the neck of the deceased and thereby opined that it was a case of throttling but this opinion of the witnesses was totally discredited by the medical evidence according to which any ante mortem injury of that nature was not found nor there was any indication of the cause of death being throttling. Learned trial-court also considered that the doctor had mentioned the cause of death as shock and trauma which may be a cause due to electrocution as was the case of the defence. As to the ground of demanding dowry it was argued on behalf of the O.Ps. that the P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 & 8, who were the father, mother, uncle and brothers of the deceased have not given any specific instance of the torture and harassment to the deceased and they have stated in a general and omnibus way that the O.Ps. were not satisfied with the quality of the articles given in marriage and that they were insisting for returning the articles and exchanging it by others by purchasing the same according to their choice and 6 that they were also demanding one motorcycle. The P.W.8, the father and P.W.5 the mother of the deceased did not say in their evidence about specific instances of torture and harassment at the hands of the O.Ps. It was argued that the P.W.8, the father of the deceased stated in his F.I.R. that once the father namely, Nago had gone to the village and he had threatened him of dire consequences if the motorcycle was not given but in his evidence he does not say like that. It was submitted that deceased’s father has specifically stated that there was dispute over the quality of articles given in the marriage and the O.Ps. were insisting for exchanging it and that some conciliations had been done in the matter. Learned trial-court considered all the facts and circumstances and find that the prosecution was not able to prove the entire facts that the O.Ps. had tortured and harassed the deceased due to non- fulfillment of demand and that the death had occurred under any abnormal circumstances due to any act overt or covert at the hands of the O.Ps. and 7 therefore, the charges were not proved and the O.Ps. were acquitted. Considering the facts, circumstances and the evidence as considered by the learned trial-court, I fail to find any perversity or illegality in the order of acquittal as passed by the learned trial-court. In the circumstance, finding no merit this appeal is dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)