IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.31 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR. ………. APPELLANT. Versus 1. SUBASH CHAUHAN, SON OF BRIJA CHAUHAN 2. PRADIP CHAUHAN, SON OF SUBASH CHAUHAN 3. RAMAWATI DEVI, WIFE OF SUBASH CHAUHAN ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARNAIYA RARAJARAM, POLICE STATION GOPALPUR, DISTRICT – GOPALGANJ. …………… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 05/ 08.10.2010 Govt. Appeal No. 31 of 2010 with I.A. No. 303 of 2010 Heard counsel for the State as well as the respondents. Interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of six months in filing the appeal. Delay is condoned. The govt. appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 18.8.2009 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 277 of 2008, whereby the respondents 1,2 and 3 have been acquitted of charges under Sections 304B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal against the acquittal has been filed on the ground that trial court has failed to interpret the provisions of Section 304B of the IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act and ignored the evidence on record. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that PW 3 Dinesh Chauhan, brother of the deceased filed a 2 written report before the Officer-in-charge of Gopalpur Police Station alleging that his sister Kiran has been killed by her family members due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry. The marriage of informant’s sister was solemnized on 12.5.2007 with Pradeep Chauhan (Respondent No. 2) and her Gauna was performed on 13.3.2008. Since the date of gauna in- laws of informant’s sister started demanding motor cycle, golden chain and other articles and pressurizing her to convey to her parents for its’ fulfilment. The sister of the informant used to inform the informant and other family members specifically, regarding the demand made by her in-laws, but on account of financial constraint the demand could not be fulfilled. On 7.4.2008 Subash Chauhan, Pradeep Chauhan, Anil Chauhan, Kusum and mother-in-law of his sister killed Kiran and made her dead body traceless. She was cremated without informing the informant and his family members. Subsequently the informant, coming to know about this incident, went along with his family members to village Barnaiya Rarajaram, which is the sasural of his sister and there they found that only parent- in-law of his sister were present at their house and other family members were absconding. On the basis of this information Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 17 of 2008 was instituted under 3 Sections 304B & 201 of the IPC against all respondents on 9.4.2008.The charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons on completion of the investigation and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Manager Chauhan (PW 1), Raju Chauhan (PW 2), Dinesh Chauhan (PW 3), the informant of the case, Sukhari Chauhan (PW 4), Mishri Mahto (PW 5) and Sudama Rai (PW 6), the investigating officer of the case were examined to prove the charges framed against the accused persons under Sections 304B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court has discussed the evidence of the witnesses and also the provisions under Section 113B of the Evidence Act as well as Section 304B of the IPC. For making out an offence under Section 304B of the IPC, the evidence, which is required, is that there must be torture and harassment in relation to demand for dowry, just before the death of the victim. The learned Judge of the trial court has discussed the evidence and his finding is that there is no specific evidence on the point of torture just before the incident of killing of the deceased. Even in case the prosecution witnesses had information regarding the complaint on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry, there is nothing to show that any steps were taken by the informant and 4 his family members regarding it. No sanaha, no information to any of the investigating agency has been made. The person, who is said to have informed the informant and his family members regarding killing of Kiran Devi was also not examined. The prosecution has failed to discharge its’ duty regarding bringing all relevant evidence on record to prove the allegations regarding dowry death. In this circumstance, there was nothing to prove the guilt of the accused persons, as provided under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. On consideration of entire material on record, we are satisfied that the view taken by the trial court is reasonable one. There is no error. Neither there is any perversity in the judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)