IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.598 of 2008 AJAY BIND & ARJUN BIND Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 10.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Learned counsel for the appellants has produced Xerox copy of entire deposition of witnesses, F.I.R. and other relevant papers. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.5.2008 and 30.5.2008 respectively passed by Sri Indu Bhushan Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2007 by which both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.3000/- each under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. Initially Complaint Case No.727 (C) of 2005 was filed which was referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Harnaut Police Station and accordingly, Harnaut (Telmer) P.S.Case No. 231 of 2005 was registered for offences under Section 498A,304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal 2 Code. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of sessions and when the charges were framed to the accused persons, they pleaded innocence and their defence was that it was an accidental death and there was no demand of dowry or any kind of torture at any stage of time. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 12 witnesses. They are : P.W.1 Dhuri Jamadar, P.W.2 Dukhit Jamadar, P.W.3 Janardan Prasad, P.W.4 Ram Baran Jamadar, P.W.5 Agnu Jamadar, P.W.6 Madan Bind, P.W.7 Laldeo Bind, P.W.8 Jamuni Devi, P.W.9 Arjun Jamadar, P.W.10 Suresh Yadav, P.W.11 Charitar Yadav and P.W.12 Jagdish Mahto. According to prosecution case, the marriage of the informant’s daughter Rina Devi with appellant no.1 Ajay Bind was performed in the year 2002 and after marriage she started living with her husband but she died at her husband’s house. The allegation was that she was being subjected to torture in connection with demand of a motorcycle and Rs.35,000/- by way of additional dowry. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that not even a single witness has supported any part of the prosecution allegation regarding torture or demand of additional dowry but the trial court without any material on record has passed the order of conviction and sentence, as stated above. P.W.9 is father of the deceased Rina Devi. He is complainant/informant of the case. Though he has 3 supported that the marriage of his daughter was performed with appellant no.1 Ajay Bind and she was living with her in-laws but he denied that any sort of torture or any kind of cruelty in connection with dowry related demand was made. This witness has even refused regarding any statement before the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied that the contents of the complaint petition were ever read to him and he was unaware of the contents of the complaint petition. Though he admits his signature but denied every things. P.W.1 is uncle of the deceased. He has also not supported any part of the occurrence, rather he denied about any cruelty committed by the in-laws of the deceased. P.W. 2 has also given the similar evidence regarding marriage and death but he also denied any torture to the victim. He further stated in his evidence that the behaviour of the accused persons were proper and the deceased was not subjected to torture or cruelty. P.w.3 is another uncle of the deceased. His evidence is identical to the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of the father of the deceased P.W.9. P.W.4 is a natural witness. He has stated that after receiving injuries, Rina was brought to hospital for treatment and she was provided proper treatment. He denied the factum of dowry related demand. Similarly, P.Ws. 5,6 and 7 have supported the marriage and death but all of them denied about any torture regarding dowry related demand and their evidence is that the victim died while she was cooking. Mother of the victim Jamuni Devi has been examined as P.W.8. She also 4 supported the factum of marriage but she stated that no torture was committed to her regarding dowry related demand. The independent witnesses P.Ws. 10 and 11 have also not supported any part of the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from perusal of the judgment it appears that the order of conviction and sentence has been passed only on the basis of statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded by the Investigating Officer. Perused the judgment and the depositions of the witnesses. I find that there is no evidence at all connecting with the occurrence. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence are set a side. The appellants are acquitted and they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. They ( appellants Ajay Bind and Arjun Bind) are directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)