Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.908 of 2006 Against the judgment of conviction dated 17.10.2006 and order of sentence dated 19.10.2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No.950 of 2004+ 180 of 2005/52 of 2004 1. NARSINGH SAH, 2. SITA DEVI, 3. PHOOL PARI DEVI & 4. RAM JEEVAN SAH.... ... APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR.... .... RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 1042 OF 2006 RAM PRAHLAD SAH.... .... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR.... .... Respondent ----- For the Appellants:-S/Sri Gajendra Kumar Jha, Sushil Kumar Jha & Kumar Praveen, Advocates For the Respondent: Sri Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA Dharnidhar Jha,J These two appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction dated 17.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.No.IV, Samastipur in Sessions Trials No.950 of 2004 and 180 of 2005. The appellants had been charged for committing offence under Section 2 304B IPC and by the above judgment they were held guilty of the said offence. After hearing the appellants on sentence, the learned trial Judge directed the appellants Narsingh Sah, Ram Jeevan Sah and Ram Prahlad Sah to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years while the remaining two appellants, namely, Sita Devi and Phool Pari Devi were to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. No sentence of fine was imposed by the learned trial Judge. The appellants have presented the two appeals to this Court to assail the above judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 2. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan(Ext-1) of P.W.5 Nagendra Sah on the basis of which Sarairanjan P.S.Case No.36 of 2004 was instituted by drawing up the FIR. It was stated in the fardbeyan by P.W.5 which was recorded allegedly at the house of these appellants that he had got his daughter Rekha Devi married to appellant Ram Prahlad Sah on 07.03.2001 and had given a huge number of articles as presents and gifts by way of giving dowry to the couple. The deceased came to her matrimonial house and after nine days she came back to her parents’ house. Dwiragman 3 ceremony was performed on 14.03.2001 as a result of which she came to the matrimonial house, and she was asked to bring a colour television and Rs.50,000/- in cash for establishing the trade in garlic and other spices. The deceased conveyed the demand of the appellants to her parents by letter as also by telephone by giving a call at the number of her neighbours’ house. It was stated that in March 2001, the deceased had been assaulted and treated with cruelty by the parents as a result of which P.W.5 came to the house of the appellants with 10-12 persons and obtained a bond for treating the deceased with mercy and respect as also to secure that no further illtreatment was meted out to the deceased. 3. However, it was alleged on 02.05.2004 that the informant received an information that his daughter had been killed by being set at fire after pouring kerosene oil as a result of which he came to the house of appellants with Suresh Prasad Sah, Mahendra Sah, Punit Sahani, Sanjeev Kumar Sah and Krishnandan Sah, all of whom have not been examined and found the dead body lying there 4 which indicated that the lady had been burnt to death. The police came there and he gave his fardbeyan. 4. The Investigating Officer was not examined during trial, as such I do not have anything on record to note as to how the investigation proceeded and what were the steps undertaken by the investigating officer for completing the investigation. 5. The doctor holding the postmortem examination report also appears not examined, as such I am again in dark as regards the cause of death or the nature of injuries which could have been found by the doctor on the person of the deceased. However, what this Court finds is that eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of the charges, out of whom, the neighbours, like, P.Ws.6 and 7 were declared hostile. So far as P.W.1 Jogendra Sah who was the uncle of the deceased is concerned, he stated that he learnt about the incident from the Chaukidar and again the said Chaukidar had not been produced nor examined. P.W.5 the informant might have supported by telling a story to the court as regards the death of his daughter but 5 in the very examination-in-chief he was buckling down to say to the court that he had got his daughter married in Baisakh, 1995 and further that the deceased was a regular visitor to his house who never complained about anything against the appellants to him nor she could ever tell that anything was demanded by any of the appellants. P.W.5 further stated that he had been informed by the appellants and on that information he had reached their house where the police officers came and obtained his signature on a plain paper. In paragraph-2 he stated that he had never given any statement to the police nor had he convened any Panchayati so as to obtaining bond from the appellants. If it could be the evidence of the informant that he was not giving any statement to the police and further that he was forced to sign a plain paper and if he could further tell the court that the deceased was never complaining against the appellants in connection with anything much less in connection with any demand for any dowry article or was not being illtreated then this Court has great reservations in sustaining the order of 6 conviction. It appears from the consideration of the evidence of the witnesses specially that of the informant that the learned trial Judge was passing an order on his moral conviction which was quite unsustainable in law. 6. In the result, the two appeals succeed. They are allowed and the order of conviction and the sentence passed upon the appellants are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge for which they were found guilty. All the appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Patna High Court, Dated, the 18th day of July, 2011, Brajesh Kumar/NAFR ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)