:; 1‘ i ? ‘ Comm: 'ble ..P.md & on‘ble r.R.LJanwar, J. HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR Hén'ble Mr.R.L.Jhanwar £ inal ppeal No.79 o 26 Crim A 8 f 00 Jaga’r am and ano‘rher R VersUs r STa're of Chha’r’risarh g _ JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sdl- R.L. Jhanwar f A Judge P’r OS for Jnf udgme on : 3/2 0/11009 Lv ...rr. Hon MrT$har H M.h J I Y1 \ AWL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.789 of 2006 CORAM: HON'aLE MR.T.P.5HARMA & HON‘BLE MR.R.L.JHANWAR, J'J. (CRMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL g PROCEDURE 1973) Presen’r —1 _‘ Mr Arun Kochar‘ counsel for The appellon’rs [Mr Ashlsh Shukla Governmenf Advocafe wufh Mr Sandeep Yodav » Deputy Government Advocate for 'rhe SfaTe/r'esponden’r JUDGMENT (Passed oh 30*“ November 2009) The Judgment of ‘l‘he Court was dellvered by T P sharma J —» 1 By thus appeal the appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of The Judgmenf of convuchon & order of senfence doTed 20 3 2006 passed: by ’rhe Flf‘lfh Addl‘honol Sessnons ‘Judge Durg, In Sessuons Trlol’ No.13a7/2005 whereby & whereunder Iearned Fif’rh Addifional Session; Judge offer holding +h‘e appellants guil‘ry for causing dowry death and murder of Anita wife of appellant No.2 Dileshwar convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 B and 302/34 of the Indlan Penal, Code and sentenced them to undergo Imprisonment for Ilfe and to pay a i B APPELLANITS 1. Jaga‘l’ Ram Sahu 5/0 Panchram Sahu, (In Jai;l)‘ ‘ I qged about 66 year's R/o Village - Ur'la ‘ i P.S. Poolgaon DistDur‘g (6.6.) 1 \ ‘ Dileshwa'r @ Monu S/o Jagai‘ Ram Sahu aged abou’r 25 years R/o Village-Urla P.$. V i " 7' Poolgaon DistDur‘g ' Versus U RESPéNSéNT ‘ ' S’rafe of Chhaf‘risgar‘h, Through P.S.— ’ ~; / v " ‘ Poolgaon Disf Durg (C 6) fina ofi Rs.1000/-, in defauH of paymenf of fine To furfher‘ underg rigq‘r'ouis imprisonmenf for 6 monfhs on each coun’r for each offence. ‘ ‘ . Judgment & order are chaHenged on fhe ground ’rha'r wrrhou‘l’ There bemg any clunchmg and credlble evudence The Courf below has convucfed and sen’renced 'rhe appellanfs as aforementioned and Thereby commn‘Ted lllegall‘ry. x . Case of The prosecuTIon m brief Is ThaT deceased AnITa wufe of appeIIanT No 2 Dlleshwar and daughTer In Iaw of appellanT N01 JagaT Ram married WITh Qileshwar In The year 2003 She was reSIdIng wrl'h The appeIIanTs In Their house On 154 2005 aT abouT 6 30 p m she received burn InJurIes In I The house of The appellanTs She was shIfTed To DIsTrIcT HospITaI Durg for ’ ImmedIaTe TreaTmenT She was exammed by Dr A KMIshra (PW 12) Vlde i Ex.E/1Z. She was burn up To 98%. AT abouT 7.20 p.m., InTImaTIon was senT » To The? police vide Ex.P/5. PresenT appellanT No.27 also received burn injuries. She was examined by Dr.A.K.Mishra (PW-12) vide Ex.D/6, He was ‘ burn ud To 30% Discharge TickeT of appellanT Dileshwar is Ex D/4 Duriné‘ z ‘ The course of TreaTmenT on 16 4 2005 The pollce requesTed The ExecuTIve MagIsTraTe for recording dying declaraTIon of InJured AnITa Vlde Ex P/26 and als'o requesTed The docTor for examinaTion of The injured AniTa as To wheTheir she is in a posiTion Tagive sTaTemenT vide EXP/'25. The docTor has ' examined and cerTified ThaT she is in a posiTion To give The sTaTemenT. Her dying decIaraTIon was recorded by ExecuTIve MagIsTraTe Ashokkumar rShrIvasTava (PW-9) Vlde Ex P/11 In which she has speclflca||y deposed ThaT ‘ her husband and faTher—In—Iaw have seT her ablaze. Durlng course of i TreaTmenT she died on 16.4.2005 aT abouT 8.40 p.m. DeaTh was inTimaTed by The docTor To police vide Ex.P/24. On The basis of inTimaTion (EXP/24), , police s‘TaTion-Durg recorded merg inTimaTion vide Ex P/22 and regisTered merg was recorded Vlde Ex P/23 FI R was recorded Vlde Ex P/27 AfTer ' summoning The WITnesses Vlde Ex P/10 InquesT over The body of deceased ‘ AnITa was prepared Vlde Ex P/1A Dead body was senT for auTopsy To DIsTrIcT HospITal, Durg Vlde Ex.P/12. AuTopsy was conducTed by r J ‘ } Dr Padmakar' Mushra (PW—17) Vlde Ex P/29 100% burn mJumes were found over ’rhe body of deceased Anrra Dea’rh was as a resul'r of primary neurogemc shock as a resulf of bur'n Burn p:ece of clofh broken piece of bangles and ma'rch box were recovered from ’rhe spof vude Ex P/3 Confamer con’rammg kerosene burn piece of curfam burn piece of lungl and whlfe shlr‘r were also recovered from The spo’r Vlde Ex P/4 Ar‘hcles of dowry were selzed from accused/appellan‘r No 2 Dlleshwar Vlde Ex P/6 On 15 4 2005 rooms which were used by fhe appellanf Dlleshwar and deceased Anl’ra were sealed wde Exs P/7 and P/8 Spo‘r map was prepared by mvesahga’nng officer vude Ex P/18 Spo’r map was also prepared by Pa‘rwarl § Vlde Ex P/Z The accused were arres’red Vlde Exs P/19 and P/ZO Selzed : arflclesswere Senf for chemical examma‘hon Vlde Ex P/21 4. Stafemenfs of The wifnesses were recorded under Section 161 of The Code of fCriiminaI Procedure, 1973 (in shorT ‘The Code") where moTher ofIThe‘é deceased has sTaTed ThaT The deceasedhas given oral dying declaraTion and has fold To her moTher namely, Suman Bai ThaT The appellant has caused burn injuries ToThe deceased. AfTer compleTion of invesTigaTion,‘ charge sheeT was filed in The CourT of fheJudicial MagisTraTe Firs’r Classg Durg, who in Turn commiTTed The case To The CourT of The Sessions Judge,’ Durg from where FifTh AddiTional Sessions Judge, Durg received The same on Transfer for Trial. 5. In order To prove The guilT of The appellanTs, prosecuTion examined as many as 17 wiTnesses. STaTemenTs of The accused/appellanTs were aISo recorded under 'SecTion 313 of The Code where They denied. The circumsTances appearing againsTThem and claimed innocence and false implicaTion in The crime in quesTion. 6 AfTer affording an opporTunITy of hearing To The parTies FIfTh AddITIonal Sessuons Judge has conVIcTed and senTenced The appellanTs as aforemenTIoned. 7. Wé h’aVe I heard Mr.Arun Kochar, counsel for 'rhe appellqnfs and Mr.Ashish ShIiIkIaE, l Government Advocafe with Mr'.5andeep Yadav, DepuTy Governmenf AdVfoe<1ife for fhe S'rafe and perused ‘rhe judgmen’r impugned and record o fhé Cobrf below. 8 Learned counsel for fhe oppellanfs vehemenfly argued fha’r Though fhe deceased Anlfa Wife of appellanf No 2 Dlleshwar and daughfer In Iaw of f appellanf N01 Jaga‘r Ram Sahu died wufhm 7 years of her marriage as a resulT of burn InJurIes susTaIned by her In The house of The appellanTs In abnormal Circumsfances but fhe same Is no’r suffICIenf for drawmg l inference ThaT The appellan Ts have caused dowry deaTh of The deceased or ; have caused homICIdal deaTh of The deceased The prosecuTlon Is reqUIred E To prove ITs case beyond all shadow of doubT Learned counsel furTher g argued ThaT The case of The prosecuTIon resTs on dying declaraTIon of The :' deceased (Ex P/11) buT recording of dying declaraTIon Is suspucuous ' ProsacuTIon has noT proved genuineness and TruThfulness of .dymg ‘1 - deélarhTion. On The oTher hand, appellanT No.2 Dileshwar @ Mani-:- husband of The deceased has also received burn injuries While he was saving The deceased. He was also admiTTed in The hospiTal and was ‘also‘ examined by Dr.S.R.Churendra (PW-11) vide Ex.P/15. AppellanT No.2 has TakenlThe deceased from’house To hospiTal for her TreaTmenT shows ThaT: appellanTs have noT caused any faTal injury To The deceased wiTh inTenT To ' causmg homICIdal d'eaTh of The deceased Therefore conVIcTIon & sentences Imposed upon The appellan‘rs under Secfuon 302/34 of The Indian Penal Code are noT susTaInable under The law. Learned counsel also ' argued ThaT only on The ground ThaT The deceased AniTa Was married Tom appelLanT No.2 in The year 2003 and died on 16.4.2005 wiThin 7 years of her marriage in abnormal circumsTances as’a resulT of burn injuries is noT ~ &suffic:ienT for drawing inTerference ThaT appellanT No.2, who is husband T and appellanT N01 who is faTher—in—law of The of The deceased have caused dowry deaTh of The deceased In absence of any eVIdence of cruelTy or TorTure In connecTIon WITh demand of dowry commiTTed by The f appeHan’rs Soon before her deafh Affer death of The decease heir mafer'nal reIaTIves wrl‘h a View f0 :mpllca‘re ’rhe appellanfs have deposed reIaTmg ‘ro demand of dowry agamsf The appellan’rs. i i I l ; ‘ 9. Leq’r‘nefd counsel placed reliance in The ma‘rfer' of Mohd.Iqbal alias Bara‘tu v.5ifa1‘Ee of Chha‘rfisgarhl in which fhis Cour’r has held that fhe Cour-f is reduihed ‘ro safisfy ’rha‘r 1‘he deceased was in a fi’r sfafe of mind fo‘make i s’rafemen‘r and dymg declaraflon was frue volun’rary and no‘l‘ Influenced by any exfraneous consuderahon Leaf'ned counsel fur'fher- placed r'ellance In fhe ma’rfer of Sanfosh v Sfafe of Chhafhsgarhz In which ’rhls Cour‘r has also held That m The absence of any eVIdence of TorTure and cr'ueITy In i connecTlon WITh demand of dowry soon before The deaTh of The deceased ., i is convncTIon under SecTIon 304 B of The Indian Penal Code Is noT susTaInable § l Learned counsel also placed rellance In The maTTer of $Ta1'e of M P v f - Raghuveer $Ingh and others In which The High Court of Madhya Pradesh i has held That If no certIfIcaT‘e by docTor ThaT persan gIVIng sTaTemenT was fully fit to give statement, same cannot be conSIdered as eVIdence far”- conVIctIng accused Learned counsel further placed rellance In The matter j of Laxml Narayan Glrl and others v The State of Madhya Pradesh. (now State of Chhattlsgarh) vude Judgment dated 26 72006 passed In’ ' Criminal Appeal No 2441 of 2000 In which this Court has held That the» prosecution Is required to prove The fact that dying declaration was voluntarlly and truth and was given In a fit state of mind. 10.0n‘ the other hand, learned State counsel supported the judgment impughed and argued that deceased died within 7 years of her marriage in‘ The house of The appellants in abnormal condition as a result of burn‘ injuries. The appellants were under obligation .to explain as to how she died. The prosecUtion has adduced clear and, cogent evidence to prove-the 12008 (I) Cr.C.P.(C.G.) 118 az‘oos (I) Cr c P (c e) 131 32008, (II);”c'r.c..P.(M:P.r)’ 155 d T facf 'rha'r soon before her dea1‘h she has been subJeC'l'ed To forfur'e and cruel‘ry‘ m connec’rlon Wifh demand of money Learned coun5el further argued' tha’r ‘l‘he EVIdence of mafernal relatlves who are naiural Witnesses have proved The fac‘l‘ beyond all shadow of doubf ; , 11. In order 'fo apprecuate ’rhe con'l‘en’rlons of ‘l‘he partles we have examined *he evudence aval|ab|e on record In order fo affract The provuslons of The offence of dowry deaTh and murder of The deceased prosecuhon Is requlred To prove ThaT The appeIIdnTs have commITTed TorTure and cruelTy soon before The deaTh of The deceased In connecTIon WITh demand of dowry and prosecuTIon is alsa reqUIred To prove ThaT The appeIlanTs have E ' _ . _‘:\ I I S‘ib" caqsed homladal deaTh of The deceased amounTmg To murder. .‘ .3 a . 1 V 12 The case of The‘ prosecuTIon subsTanTIally resTs on dying declaraTIon (Ex P/11) and oral dying declaraTIon made by The deceased To her maTernal ‘ relaTIves and The evudence of maTernal reIaTIve of The deceased In The presenT caSe abnormal deaTh of The deceaSed AnITa as a resulT of burn InJurtes Is noT dlspuTed by The appellanTs oTherwuse also esTabIIshed by The eVIdence of DrA KMIshra (PW—12) Dr Padmakar Mushra (PW 17) ii ' 1 meducal reporT (Ex P/17) and auTopsy reporT (Ex P/29) Dr A K Mushra (PW- ‘ 12) has deposed in his eVIdence ThaT, on 15.4.2005 InJured AnITa was produced for medicaT‘exdminaTion. He'was examined The body of AniTa andy l i i i I ‘ found 98% deep burn injuriesfSmeH of kerosene was coming from The p I , i 1 i i body §of injured AniTa. She‘was semi-conscious. He was admiTTed her in‘ burn Ward D‘r Padmakar Mishra (PW 17) has deposed in his evidence ThaT he has conducTed auTopsy of The body of AmTa and found anTe morTem burn Cause of deaTh was neurogenlc shock as a resulT of 100A InJuries These facTs are suffICIenT To esTabhsh The facT ThaT The deceased AnITa died as a resuiT of burn InJurIe @ : s 13 In order To es'rabhsh fhe compllcu’ry of The accused/appeilan’rs for cau5Ing dowry ‘dea?h and homucudol dea’rh amoun'hng f0 murder of The deceased Anm‘ra The prosecutlon has adduced oral dymg declarahon and dymg declara'hon recorded and fhe evudence of demand of dowry soon before The death of The deceased As regards dymg decIaraTIon recorded by The ExecuTIve MagIsTraTe Ashok Kumar ShrlvasTava (PW-9) vude Ex P/11 Is concerned AsSIsTanT Sub InspecTor RamavTar Shukla (PW—15) has deposed In his eVIdence ThaT he received Telephonlc InformaTIon on 15 4 2005 ThaT InJared AmTabaI has admiTTed In hospITal ,m InJured condITIon He imrinedfaTely reached To The hospiTaI and Tried for recording dying des§larhTion, aT‘ThaT Time, she was noT in posiTion To depose, Then on 16.34.2005 again ‘he inquired abouT The condiTion of The injured. On‘ 1642005 she wd‘s in posiTion To sTaTe Then he senT requisiTion To The: ExecuTIve MagIsTraTe for recording dying declaraTion and also senT, reqUIslTIon To docTor for recording evudence of The InJured Vlde Exs P/25I and P/25, In which docTor has cerTIfIed ThaT InJured was in a fIT sTaTe gf‘ mind,‘ Then Ashok Kumar 'ShrivasTava (PW-9) has recorded dyihg" declaraTion of AniTa. Ashok Kumar ShrivasTava (PW—9) has deposed in hisf evidence ThaTlon' 16.4.2005 he received requisiTion for recording dying declaraTion. AniTa was admiTTed in The hospiTal. He wenT To burn ward of The hospiTaI where injured AniTa was Taking her TreaTmenT. He asked from docTor and recorded her dying declaraTion vide Ex.P/11 in which she made sTaTemenT ThaT her husband Dileshwar and faTher—in-law JagaT Ram have seT her ablaze. AfTer recording dying declaraTion, he obTained Thumb impression of AniTa in Ex.P/11.' DocTor was also presenT who Told ThaT injured is a fiT sTaTe of mind. In his cross-examinaTion, he has admiTTed: ThaT he is noT menTioned The name of AniTa below Thumb impression. He ’1 i has denied The suggesTion ThaT he has Taken Thumb impression of oTher l person. He has also deposed ThaT she was under TreaTmenT and one hand of ‘ injured AniTa was clean and free, Therefore, he has Taken Thumb impression of her hand which was free and clean. In para 4 of his cross— \ l @ exdmin‘h'tion he has admiffed fhaf at The Time of recording dying declarahon mofher‘ of The deceased doctor and one nurse were also present He has demed ‘rhe suggestion fha’r InJured has no? made any volunfarlly sTa‘remen’r and has recorded The sTaTemenT aT The InsTance of moTher of The deceaSed. 14 Mohani (PW-1) faTher of The deceased AruTa has deposed In his evudence ThaT youngesT son of appeIIanT No 2 Informed hlm abouT burn InJurIes of The ddceased AniTa He wenT To The hospITal along WITh his wufe In—Iaws has Taken AmTa To The hospITal MoTher of appeIlanT No 2 and moTher In- low of The deceased AniTa was presenf In The hospITaI InJured was unconsolous InJured AniTa has deposed To his wn‘e ThaT boTh The accused ' persons have poured kerosene and SeT her ablaze In para 25 of hls: cross-examlna‘hon he has repeoTed ThaT The accused persons have seT her; ablaze. Suman Sahu (PW-z), moTher of The deceased AniTa, has deposed In her eQidence ThaT afTer receiving informaTion of The incidenT she w‘enT To‘ The hduse of The appellanT, buT AniTa was noT presenT and persons presenjr...‘ Therelwere Told her ThaT AniTa is admiTTed in hospiTal, Then she wenT Toi The HospiTol. AniTa was Talking. On being asked by her, AniTa made sTaTernenT ThaT her husband has seT her ablaze. In para 6, she has deposed ThaT police has also asked gAniTo, whom she Told ThaT her husband and ; faTher-in-Iaw have seT her ablaze. She has deposed in para 12 of her cross-iexaminaTion ThaT Tahsil'dar has also recorded sTaTemenT of injured AniTa; aT ThaT Time she was presenT, buT police officers were noT preSenT, docTor was also presenT. _In para 15, she has denied The suggesTion ThaT she has TuTored her daughTer AniTa To Tell The name her husband and faTher-in-law ThaT They have seT her ablaze. As’a result of such TuTor, AniTa made sTaTemenT ThaT her husband and faTher-in—Iaw have SeT her ' ablaze. x 5 Consfable Jagdish Tiwarl (PW 16) has deposed In his eVIdence ThaT he has Taken InJured and appellanT N02 Dlleshwar To The hosplTal for Their exammaTIon. Dr.A.K.Mlshra (PW-12) has admITTed in para 2 of his ewdence v ’ 1 fhaf appeHan’r No 2 Dlleshwar came wufh his Wife on 154 2005 a’r abou‘r 7 20 pm whom he admif'ted m burn ward Burn InJur'Ies was also found over Theib'ody of appellan‘r No 2 He has also adml’r'red To Dileshwar on the same day chobouf 725 pm Dlleshwqr was burn up To 30/0 He was examined Dileshwar vude Ex D/4 and he has In‘hmafed The pollce re!a1'lng ’ro burn case vude Ex P/5 t i 16.0n ;<:l‘os:e scrufiny, it is clear from The evidence of Mohan (PW-1), fafher of fheideceased f Anita, fhaf in-la‘w’s had admi’rfed Anifa in fhe hospi‘l’al. Mofher of appellanf No 2 and mofher in—low of fhe deceased was present ‘ In fhe hosprral Appellanf No 2 husband of The deceased foolaher In The hospn‘al for Treafmenf He also received burn mJurIes af fhe ‘hme of « meldenf up fo 30% He was examined by doc’ror Vlde Ex D/6 He was admuffed In hospl’ral In burn ward for furfher ’rrea‘rmenf Mohan (PW-1) 5 fafher of fhe deceased has deposed fha'r deceased was fellmg fo her mofher fha’r appellanf No 2 Dlieshwar has poured kerosene over her and se’riher ablaze. Suman Sahu (PW-2) has also deposed m para 3 ’rhaf she went fd hospifal and asked To Anifa abouT The incidenf, Then she Told ThaT : hervhusband has seT her ablaze, buT subsequenTly she made sTaTemenT To ' The police ThaT her husband and faTher-in—ldw seT'her ablaze. Ashokkumar a ShrivasTava (PW-9), ExecuTive MagisTraTe who has recorded dying ’ declardTion vide Ex.P/11 has deposed ThaT in The presence of her moTher, injured AniTa has made dying declaraTion ThaT her‘ husband and faTher—in- law;have seT her ablaze. Mohan (PW—1) faTher of The deceased has ‘ specifically deposed ThaT in-law's of AniTa had Taken her To hospiTal and y moTher-in-law of The deceased was presenT in The hospiTal. Dr.A.K.Mishra l (PW—12;) who has examined appellanT No.2 Dileshwar and deceased AniTa : has specifically deposed ThaT appellanT No.2 Dileshwar came wiTh injured AniTa whom he has examined and‘ has admiTTed boTh The persons in The ’ hospiTal in burn ward Burn injuries of appellanT No 2 Dileshwar was up To 30% ConsTable Jagdlsh Tiwari (PW 16) has also deposed ThaT he has i produced AniTa and Dileshwar Vlde Exs P/16 and P/28 for examinaTIon @ 17 Thése 'facfs dearly show fha? in law's of Anim had ‘I‘aken her 'ro hospi‘ral from Their house Appellant No 2 also received 30% bum mJurIes a’r fhe fume of Incudenf He was admlt‘red m hospital along With his Wife Amfa Mo‘l‘her-m—Iaw of ’rhe deceased was presen‘r In the hospl’ral bu‘r from I f perusal of oral dymg declara‘hon and dymg declarahon re-orded by The Execuflve Maglsfm’re If appears fhaf Amfa has made s’ra’remenf m furs’r 1’Ime ’rhaf her husband has se’r her ablaze and second Time her husband and l fafher—In-Iaw have sef her ablaze Oral dymg declara’rlon and dymg declarahon recorded by fhe Execu‘hve Magls‘rrafe are self con’rradlc‘rory and tonsnderlng fhe facT That Amfa was admrr'red In hospn‘al by her husband appellanf No2 oral and dymg declarahon recorded does not : appear matural If some persan wull cause InJury to another person wnth I intent to homICIddI death then at least he wull not took care for her f treatment or he w1ll not take the mJured to hospital to save her life. ' These evidence and circumstances are sufficient to discard oral dying ‘ declaration and dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate i thdt the appellants had set her ablaze or they have caused fatal injuries r for causing her homicidal death. 18. According to the evidence of the prosecution, deceased Anita was married ‘ to appellant No.2 in the year 2003 and incident took place on 15.4.2005 within: two years of her marriage. Crucial question for consideration for commission of dowry death‘in the present case is whether soon before the - death of the deceased she was subjected to torture and cruelty by' the appellants in connection withdemand of dowry. Mohan’ (PW—1) father of the deceased Anita has deposed in para 3 that appellant No.2 is labour. He? has visited the house of-the appellants many times. He has deposed in paras :2 and 9 of his evidence that the appellants used to beat and torture lthe deceased and used to demand money. Suman Sahu (PW-2) mother of the deceased Anita has depOSed in para 9 that on 14.4.2005 her daughter came with appellant No.2 and at the time of return she demanded Rs.1000/- from her, butat that time she was not having money, therefore, she :hasii nof given the said amount Manmkhan (PW-3) neighbour of fm‘her' of :fheg deceased Ani'ra has deposed in his evidence Tha'r whenever k 11 deceased came ’ro her parem‘s house he asked abouf behavior of fhe appellan‘rs fhen she used To 'reii hum fhaf her m Iaws espeCIaIIy husband used To Tor'rure In connecflon wrrh demand of money The eVIdence of Mohan (PW-1) reveals fhaf fhruce her daughter has demanded Rs 1000/— The apyoiellan'r No 2 used ’ro demand money fhrough his Wife. In his defall cross examlnaflon he has deposed In para-15 fha’r ’rhrlce her daughfer came and demanded money, but he has nof given ‘rhe same fo her In para 25, ihe has deposed fha’r he has given arhcles of The, ’nme of marriage and appe:llan'r No.2 u‘sed fo commif Torfure upon 'rhe deceased in connec‘l'ion wifh; demand‘of money. In para 26, he has denied The suggesfion fhaf IisT ‘ of arficles (Ex P/14A) is forged documen‘r In para 29 he has deposed: ’rhaf i even fhe deceased has ’rold ’ro her mo’rher and neighbour ’rha’r husband and > fa‘rher In law always ’ro harass In connechon wn‘h demand of money 19. Defence has cross-examined Suman Sahu (PW—2) in defail. In her de’rai]Z crosfs-ejxamina’ripn,‘ she has deposed in para-9 fha‘r he daughter demanded i Rs.1000/- and she has stated this fact to the t this fact has not been mentioned in Ex.D/2, her police statement. Hostiie witness Manrakhan (PW-3) neighbour of father of the deceased has also deposed ‘ in para‘4 of his evidence relating to demand of money. He has aiso deposed ‘ inparaS‘ of his cross—examination that Anita told him relating to torture and demand after 8 to 9 months of her marriage. According to the evidence of Mohan (PW-1), appellant No.2 is labour, but in para 22 of his ‘ evidence he has admitted that appellant No.2 Dileshwar was working in ' B.R.P. and his salary was Rs.6000/- per month. He has also admitted in para 10 of his evidence that he is working in hotel. Suman Sahu (PW—2) mother of theideceased has admitted in para 8 of her evidence that he used to Work for cleaning and washing of the house (srr§—IWT). It shows financial status iof the parents of the deceased. It appears that financial status of -" sfa’rus of ’rhe parents of 'rhe deceased Is low Fmancml s’rafus of The appellants Is also low > 20 In fhe presen’r case paren’rs of ‘rhe deceased have no‘r deposed or blamed upongfhe appellanfs fha’r ’rhey have demanded mofor'cycle freeze T