IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus DIG VIJAY TEWARI & ORS For the State : Mr. S.C. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Purushottam Kr. Das, Advocate ----------- 2. 08.05.2008 This Govt. Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order of acquittal passed in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2007, whereby respondent nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 have been acquitted of charges framed against them under Sections 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Case of the prosecution is that PW9, Kamlesh Tiwari gave an information before the Officer In-charge, Kargahar Police Station stating that his sister, Arti @ Vidya (deceased) married to Dig Vijay Tiwari, (respondent no. 1), has been killed by the family members for demand of dowry. It has also been stated in the FIR that the marriage was performed on 27.05.2005 and since then demand for motorcycle and television was being made. For non-fulfillment of this demand, Arti @ Vidya was mentally and physically being tortured by the family members and the husband. Subsequently a telephonic message was given to the informant by some villagers that Arti @ Vidya has been killed by the family members. The informant alongwith his brothers and villagers went to the matrimonial house of his sister. He came to know that the dead body is being cremated to conceal the evidence. The informant gave information to the police station and police arrived at the place where dead body was being cremated. Half burnt dead 2 body was taken out from funeral pyre and a case was registered against husband and all family members of the deceased. From the Trial Court judgement, it transpires that on information, the officer in-charge of Kargaghar P.S. came to the place where dead body was being cremated and the body was taken out from funeral pyre and it was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination. Forensic Examination report is marked as Exibit -5. This report discloses that no cause of death could be ascertained. It was not a case of strangulation or burning or poisoning. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses PW1 is the villager, PW2 is the brother of the deceased, PW5 and PW9 are also brothers of the deceased, PW6 is the mother of the deceased, PW10 is the Investigating Officer. From the evidence of the PW1, (villager), it transpires that he had heard about the demand of dowry and torture on account of non- fulfillment of the dowry demand. He did not have personal knowledge. PW 2 ( brother of the deceased), in his cross-examination has stated that he never met his sister after marriage as he never visited her matrimonial home, as such he also did not have any personal knowledge regarding torture or demand. PW 3 who is also the villager, in his cross-examination has stated that he had visited matrimonial home of Arti @ Vidya and met her but he could not remember as to why and when he went to the Sasural of Arti @ Vidya. PW 4 has claimed to be brother of the deceased and said that after receiving information about the death of Arti @ Vidya he went to her matrimonial home and also went to the place where in his presence, the dead body was being cremated. PW 5, another brother of the deceased, has not stated anything that the deceased had made any complaint before him 3 regarding cruelty and tortures for demand of dowry. From the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that after Gauna the deceased appeared in her B.A. Examination and during her examination full cooperation of the husband and family members was given. On each and every date of the examination her husband used to accompany her. Mother of the deceased has also supported this fact in her evidence. This only indicated that there was cordial relationship in between husband and wife and it was not strained. Considering the evidence, I find that the judgement of acquittal has been passed by the Judge of the trial court on considering each and every aspect of the evidence of the witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses has been discussed and reasoning have been assigned for coming to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to prove charge of torture and demand of dowry. Evidence on record also indicated that death was not an unnatural death. Brother of the deceased who reached at the place where dead body was being cremated did not disclose name of the person who gave them information regarding death of their sister Arti @ Vidya Considering the evidence and discussion in the impunged judgement of acquittal, we do not find that the judgement of acquittal is perverse and has been passed ignoring the evidence. Accordingly, the Govt. Appeal is dismissed. Jagdish (Mridula Mishra,J) (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)