Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.179 of 1997 Against the judgment dated 28th June 1997 passed by Sri Ram Vyas Ram, the 2nd Addl. Session Judge Rohtas, Sasaram in Sessiion trial No. 65 of 1996 1. Hiraman Singh son of Late Ram Jit Singh. 2. Shashibhushan Singh son of Hiraman Singh Both resident of village Semari P.S. Sheosagar, district Rohtas. ……………Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar …………….espondent/s For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Pal Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jyotsna Kumari , Adv. Mr. Ram Sagar Mahto, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ------------ Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants have been convicted under Section 304(b) , 301 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for seven years under Section 304(b) and warrant issued under Section 201 IPC. However, both the sentence to run concurrently. The prosecution case as alleged in the fardbeyan by the informant Ram Nagina Singh (P.W.2), the informant is the father of the victim only to the alleged that the victim Dharmashil Devi was married with Sashibhushan Sing (Appellant No. 2) son of Hiranand Singh. It is alleged that the accused persons were torturing the Dharmashil Devi since the entrance, for non-fulfillment of the demand of motor cycle, and after receiving the money for a motor cycle Duragman was 2 performed. It is further alleged that after six months n the victim was returned back to Nehair then she disclosed that her husband Sashibhushan Singh, used to torture her for dowry. It was also complained by her that other members of the family were also torturing and assaulting her in her in-laws house. All the Jewelleries of her as alleged in the written were sold by the accused. After sometime the Fufa of the son-in-law of the informant came and asked for Bidagiri on the promise that if victim is sent with him to her in-laws-house she would not be tortured by the accused persons. On the promise Dharmshila Devi was sent to her in-law’s house with her phupha. About a week before this occurrence when the informant visited the in- laws house of her daughter she complained that she is still being assaulted by the accused persons for demand of four bigha of land. It has been further alleged that her uncle is issueless. The informant and his family members learnt that his daughter had been killed in pursuance to conspiracy hatch up by the family members of her sasural. On this information, when the informant and his nephew went to her Sasural they became convinced that Dharmashila Devi has actually been killed and the dead body has been disposed of. On the basis of written report Sheosagar P.S. Case No. 117 of 1994 was registered and investigation was made, after investigation charge-sheet was submitted cognizance was taken and the case 3 was committed to the Court of Sessions. However, during the trial the six witnesses were examined P.W. 1 Bhuneshwar Singh, P.W. 2 Ramnagina Singh, P.W. 3 Dayashankar Singh @ Baswan Singh P.W. 4 Sri Bipin Bihari Singh, P.W. 6 Sri Krishna singh P.W. Jawaharlal Singh. However, the I.O has not been examined in this case. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the learned Court below sentenced the appellants. P.W. 2 has stated in his evidence that marriage of the victim Dharamshila was solemnized about 10 years before the occurrence. He cannot say how she died and the time of marriage there was no demand and has stated that he gave the written report by mistake. P.W 3 stated that the Sasural people used to behave well and has been declared hostile. P.W 4, 5 and 6 also not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. However P.W 1 though have supported prosecution case at outset but is his subsequent cross examination has stated that marriage of Dharamshila and Sashi Bhusan performed ten years prior to occurrence and they had good relation. Hence, taking into consideration the entire evidence there is no satisfactory evidence to frame the ingredients of 304B that marriage solemnize within seven years, there was demand or subjecting cruelty death in suspicious circumstance to attract 304B. Hence, taking into consideration the entire evidence, the prosecution has not been established within a 4 reasonable time, none has been established that the victim was subject to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry in connection with dowry nor have established. Hence offence Section 304(B) has not been established by the prosecution witness but shift to the occurrence and hence the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges within a reasonable time. Hence, the order of sentence is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna,dated 29.07.2011NAFR/ Prakash (Gopal Prasad, J.)