Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 54 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 14.02.1997 passed by Sri S.B. Singh, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 298 of 1994. ************ Satyendra Tiwary, S/o Shri Jawahar Tiwary, Resident of Village-Surajpura, P.O.- Kishunpura, Police Station-Basantpur, District-Siwan. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Arun, 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. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 298 of 1994 by a judgment dated 14.02.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 6, Rama Kant Ojha is that his daughter had been married to the appellant on 02.05.1993 according to Hindu rites whereafter she went to her Sasural but for a demand of motor-cycle she had been done to death on 22.03.1994 and her dead body had been cremated. 3. During trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer whereas P.W. 1 has stated that the demand for motor-cycle had been made during the Tilak Ceremony and thereafter there was no other demand. P.W. 2 is 2 hearsay witness on the point of alleged cruelty and demand of dowry. P.W. 3 is a witness who has been named in the complaint but did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that the deceased was living very well in her Sasural. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are hearsay witnesses on the point of demand of dowry and the alleged cruelty. P.W. 6, the complainant is the sole witness on the point that his daughter had told him that she had been tortured for ends of dowry. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer of the case is not material on any point. 4. The defence examined five witnesses on its behalf. D.W. 1 is a homeopathic Doctor who stated that the lady had died on account of some stomach ailment. D.W. 2, D.W. 3, D.W. 4, D.W. 5 and D.W. 6 are on the point that all the accused persons were family members they were living peacefully and there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons. 5. On going through the evidence on record, I find that P.W. 6 is the sole witness on the point that the deceased had told him that the accused persons were subjecting her to cruelty for ends of dowry but from his evidence it is not known when or how soon before her death the statement was given. Since the prosecution has to prove that cruelty was meted out for ends of dowry soon before the death and there is no 3 positive evidence in this regard, I am not inclined to sustain the conviction of the appellant. 6. In view of such, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 14.02.1997 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 298 of 1994 is, hereby, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 30th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-