IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G.APP.(DB) No.44 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus SANJAY KUMAR & ANR. ----------- 2. 13.12.2010. I.A.No.2361 of 2010 Govt. appeal has been filed with a prayer for condoning the delay of nine months and 16 days in filing the appeal. The reason for delay, as usual, has been mentioned as time taken in observing the process for obtaining the sanction for filing the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. While considering the limitation petition, we have also perused the impugned judgement passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna in Sessions trial No.31 of 2002 dated 25.11.2009 whereby the respondents Sanjay Kumar and Prahalad Prasad have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC. The respondents had to face trial in connection with Kadamkuan(Kankarbagh)P.S.Case No.137 of 2000 instituted by Shivdhani Prasad(P.W.2) who is the informant and father of deceased Asha Rani Gupta. Respondent no.1 Sanjay Kumar is the husband of deceased Asha Rani Gupta and respondent no.2 Prahalad Prasad is the younger brother of respondent no.1. Allegation against 2 these respondents in the FIR is that respondent no.1 used to demand one Rajdoot motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- cash from the informant as dowry. Since it was not fulfilled, he started threatening to kill his wife. Respondent no.2 used to insist upon complying with the demand. On 5.3.2000, i.e. the date of occurrence, the informant received a telephonic call that his daughter has been burnt by the accused persons. On query, the respondent no.1 said that while preparing tea she caught fire and she is being taken to Apolo Burn hospital for her treatment, Ultimately she died in the hospital during treatment. The prosecution has examined Kailash Prasad, P.W.3, and Mithilesh Prasad, P.W.5, both brothers of deceased, and father, of the deceased as P.W.2, who is also the informant. The doctor, who conducted postmortem, has been examined as P.W.4. Except the informant, P.W.2, none of the witnesses, like P.W.3 and P.W.5 have supported the case of the prosecution, either on the point of demand of dowry or on the point of torture, rather these two witnesses have stated that the deceased was being properly looked after by respondent no.1. She, while preparing tea caught fire and received burn injuries, she was taken to hospital for her treatment and she died 3 during the course of treatment. Even P.W.2, has not supported the prosecution case wholeheartedly, though he has stated that respondent no.1 used to make demand for motorcycle and cash of Rs. 50,000/-. But in reply to a question in his cross examination that whether his daughter was taken by accused persons to the hospital for her treatment, he did not deny and maintained silence. The trial court relying on the documentary evidence produced by the defence as Ext-A series, came to this conclusion that all efforts were made by the accused persons to save the life of deceased. We do not find that the impugned judgement has been passed by the trial court ignoring the evidence on record or there is perversity in recording the finding of acquittal in favour of the accused persons. Considering that there is no merit in this appeal, we do not find any reason for condoning the delay in filling the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed both on merit as well as on the point of limitation. B.Kr. ( Mridula Mishra,J. ) ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)