Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 221 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Laxmi Devi, W/o Rameshwar Prasad. 2. Rameshwar Prasad @ Rameshwar Mahto, S/o Late Kokil Mahto. Both resident of Village-Milki, Hoorari, P.S. – Karai Parsurai (Hilsa) in the district of Nalanda. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 228 of 1995 1. Dharamveer Mahto @ Dharamveer Prasad, S/o Chandeshwar Prasad. 2. Shyam Kuwar Devi, W/o Chandeshwar Prasad. Both R/o Milki Hoorari, P.S.-Karai Persurai (Hilsa) in the district of Nalanda. ………(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……..(Respondent) With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 239 of 1995 Tapeshwar Prasad @ Ranjit, S/o Sri Chandeshwar Prasad, resident of Village-Milki Hoorari, P.S.- Karaiparsurai, District-Nalanda. …….(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…(Respondent) With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 1995 Chandeshwar Prasad @ Chandeshwar Mahton, S/o Late Kokil Mahton resident of Village-Milkihoorari, P.S.- Karaiparsurai (Hilsa), District-Nalanda. …….(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv. : Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. For the State : Mrs. I.B. Pandey, APP. : Mr. J.K. Singh, APP. : Mr. B.B. Singh, APP. : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh. ************** 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 304B IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years passed 2 by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in S.Tr. No. 606 of 1994 by a judgment dated 26.09.1995. The appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 221 of 1995 are the cousin parents-in- law. The appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 228 of 1995 are the unmarried “Dewar” and mother-in-law respectively. The appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 239 of 1995 is the husband of the deceased whereas the appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 1995 is the father-in-law of the deceased. 2. The prosecution case is that the daughter of the informant was married with appellant Ranjit @ Tapeshwar Prasad about five years back and her roskadi had been performed one year after the marriage after which she was living with her parents-in-law. Even though adequate dowry has been given to the in-laws of the deceased there was an additional demand of Rs. 50,000/- for business purposes and if the demand was not given the threat would suffer dire consequences. The younger daughter of the informant was also married in the same village as the deceased and she had reported about ill-treatment meted out to the deceased on 09.08.1993 and that her death had been caused. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses out of whom P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 are formal witnesses. P.W. 4 is the informant whereas P.W. 3 is the daughter of the informant and P.W. 2 is her son-in-law. P.W. 1 is the brother of the informant and P.W. 7 is the uncle of the deceased. 3 4. The defence of the appellants was that in fact the deceased was suffering from diahorrea and vomiting on account of which she was brought to Kurji Hospital, Patna where she died. Upon her death a First Information Report was instituted by appellant, Ranjit on which appellant Jageshwar had also affixed his signature. An inquest was held after her death and the post-mortem examination was got conducted by the Investigating Officer whereafter the dead body was cremated. All this happened on 08.08.1993. Three days later the present case was instituted on account of dissatisfaction over variety of reasons. Since the ingredients of Section 304B IPC which the prosecution has to satisfy are (i) the marriage should have been taken place within seven years (ii) the death should have been caused under unnatural circumstance (iii) soon before her death demand of dowry were made, this Court has to consider whether the prosecution has successfully satisfied these ingredients and when the onus shifted on the appellants after the three ingredients were satisfied has been satisfactorily discharged by them. 5. Undoubtedly, on going through the evidence of the witnesses the marriage had taken place within seven years. The death was also unnatural. For the demands of dowry the prosecution has brought on record certain letters which had allegedly been written by the appellant Jageshwar demanding Rs. 50,000/-. But these letters were produced two months after the institution of the case. As for the reasons for death of the deceased it is clear 4 from the post-mortem examination report as well as the Doctor’s evidence P.W. 8 that he did not find any external injuries on the person of the deceased and the cause of death could not be ascertained. Therefore undoubtedly the fact that the deceased had died under an unnatural circumstances which was attributable to the appellants is not proved. Further the conduct of the appellants in bringing the deceased in an injured condition to the hospital and attempt to get her treated as also a First Information Report having been instituted after the death of the deceased sufficiently points to an innocent conduct of the appellants. 6. Under the circumstances, the appeals are allowed and the judgment dated 26.09.1995 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 606 of 1994 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 19th May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-