1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA - - - - Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.10.2006 and 17.10.2006, respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2005/14 of 2005. - - - - Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1016 of 2006 - - - - Sikander Ram son of Jagdish Ram, resident of Village Vishunpura,P.S. Obra, District Aurangabad .... .... Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent For the appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, A.C. For the State : Shri S.N.Prasad, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA - - - - Dharnidhar Jha, J.- The present appeal has been preferred by the solitary appellant to question the propriety and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No.57 of 2005/14 of 2005. By the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2006 the solitary appellant was found guilty of committing offences under Section 304B as also 201 of the Indian Penal Code and by order passed on 17.10.2006 the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304B and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 of the Penal Code as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Incase of not making the payment of fine, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year also. The sentences, however, were directed to run concurrently. 2. Admittedly, the appellant was married to Basanti Devi alias Buchhi in the year 2000 and the deceased was residing on the day of 2 occurrence in his house. Whenever the informant came to the house of the appellant, it is alleged, he used to demand a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing a buffalo since a year prior to the date of occurrence. The informant, P.W. 5 had gone to the matrimonial house of his sister about a month prior o the occurrence and he was again asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- but got rid of the accused persons on pleading his poverty and not to pay up the money. 3. The informant stated that on 18.12.2003 he received an information from an unknown person that his sister Basanti Devi had been killed by being set at fire and her dead body had been cremated. The informant along with his family members came to the house of the appellant to find that it was locked and there was none present there. It was stated that the present appellant along with his parents and younger brother had regularly ill-treated and tortured the deceased and, lastly, had killed her. 4. On the basis of the written report(Ext.1) of P.W. 5 which was scribed by Gopal Ram( P.W. 7) the F.I.R. of the case was drawn up and the same was investigated into by P.W. 10 who recorded the statements of the witnesses and finding material sufficient sent the appellant up for trial which ended in his conviction. 5. The defence of the appellant was that of complete innocence and of being falsely implicated by weaving out a false story. As a matter of fact, it was pleaded by the appellant that the deceased had died after catching cold. 6. A total number of ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution out of whom P.W. 1 Kashi Singh did not support the allegation of ill- 3 treating and torturing the deceased on account of not getting the desired amount by the present appellant. In fact, this witness stated that the deceased Basanti Devi alias Buchhi was in the habit of taking bath in the evening and on the day of occurrence also she had taken bath in the evening and the day being the coldest day, she caught cold and died. P.W. 2 Rupmani alias Rukmini alias Rupni Devi has stated nothing except that appellant Sikandar Ram was married to the daughter of the informant. P.W. 3 Rameshwar Thakur has not supported the prosecution story and has, rather, stated that the deceased died of cold. Similarly, P.W. 4 has also not supported the occurrence and has stated in the last line of paragraph 1 of his evidence that the lady died after having caught cold. P.W. 5 Manoj Ram is the informant and he also appears not supporting the prosecution allegation of ill-treating and torturing the lady on account of not getting the desired sum of money who also appears declared hostile by the prosecution and during the course of cross examination by the defence he stated in paragraph 11 that his sister was being looked after well by the accused persons and that the deceased had fallen ill on account of having caught cold and died on that account. P.W. 5 further stated that there was no demand of any dowry. P.W. 6 Binod Ram and P.W. 7 Gopal Ram have supported the prosecution case by stating that demand of Rs. 10,000/- was regularly made and for not getting the said amount the deceased was killed. P.W. 8 S.I. Dhanraj Singh is the Investigating Officer and P.W. 9 Jagnarayan Ram who was not the family member or directly related to the deceased was stating that whenever Basanti Devi came he used to tell that the appellant and her in-laws were demanding Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing a buffalo and, as such, were ill-treating and 4 torturing her so much so that she was, ultimately, killed. P.W. 10 Nissar Ahmad is another Investigating Officer of the case. 7. Thus what appears from the evidence of the witnesses is that except P.Ws. 6 and 7 who are not the full brothers or own brothers of the deceased or her own relative none has come to support the charges. P.W. 6 is the cousin of the deceased and P.w.7 is her uncle. They have stated that for not getting Rs. 10,000/- she was ill-treated and tortured and, lastly, she was killed but the evidence of P.w. 5 the brother of the deceased and the informant of the case placed completely a different story. It was pointed out by him that the deceased was being looked after well and she never complained anything against the present appellant. P.W. 5 further stated that no demand of money was made by the accused. 8. P.W. 5 could be the only witness who could have come forward to tell the truth being the brother of the deceased. He was also the head of his family. As such, any demand of money could have been placed before P.W. 5. However, P.W. 5 did not appear supporting that part of the prosecution story. 9. As regards the death of the deceased, P.W. 5 had no personal knowledge of it and he claimed to have learnt about the incident from someone coming from Aurangabad and telling him that his sister had been killed by her husband and in-laws. The name of that particular person, who passed on the above information to P.W. 5 has not been stated by P.W. 5. Besides, there is no witness examined on behalf of the prosecution who could say that in his presence and within his knowledge the demand for dowry was placed by the appellant. 10. Considering these aspects of the matter, the Court finds that 5 conviction of the appellant and sentences passed upon him were completely erroneous and are required to be set aside. 11. As a result of the above consideration, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant for acquitting him. 12. Appellant Sikander Ram is in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.) Patna High Court The 27th July, 2011 Kanth/N.A.F.R.