Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.115 OF 1997 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.4.1997 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Sessions Trial No.54 of 1996] 1. Sonamati Devi @ Kamla Devi, Wife of Sri Narsingh Mahto 2. Narsingh Mahto, son of late Ram Das Mahto, Both resident of village Gotia, P.S. Asthawan, District Nalanda …………………….. Appellants Versus The State of Bihar ………….. Respondent WITH Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.167 of 1997 Anuj Kumar @ Anuj Prasad, S/o Narsingh Mahto, Resident of village Gotia, P.S. Asthawan,District Nalanda …….. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar …….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, Addl. P.P. (In Cr.A.No.115 of 1997) Mr. J.K. Singh, Addl. P.P. (In Cr.A.No.167 of 1997) --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants have been convicted u/ss.304B, 201 and 498A I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years and two years but no separate sentence would be passed u/s.498A I.P.C. by a judgment dated 15.4.1997 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Sessions Trial No.54 of 1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the informant Nawal Kishore Prasad (P.W.7) is that his sister Shakuntala Devi had been married to appellant Anuj Prasad in the year 1992 and 2 Gauna had taken place after nine months, on the occasion of which dowry and gifts had been given. However, when the deceased went to her in-laws house, demands of Rs.10,000/- was made by the accused persons and despite efforts to pacify them threats were meted out that the deceased will be killed for non- fulfilment of the same. On 25.11.1994 the informant got information that his sister Shakuntala Devi had been done to death and when he went to the village of occurrence he was informed by Surendra Prasad, Sudhir Prasad, Sanjay Prasad and Umesh Kumar that his sister had been done to death by the accused persons. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are co-villagers of the appellants, did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the cousins of the deceased, whereas P.W.5 and P.W.7 (the informant) are the own brothers of the deceased and P.W.6 is the wife of the informant and P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. 4. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses were examined on the point that in fact the deceased had died on account of diarrhoea and her last rites had been performed in accordance with the rituals. 5. On going through the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7, I find that they are unanimous in alleging that the accused persons used to demand Rs.10,000/- and the deceased had told them that she had been tortured before her 3 death by the accused persons on account of non-fulfilment of this amount. However, apart from the general and vague oral allegation that the accused persons had demanded this amount there are no material particulars with regard to the same. Moreover, the deceased undoubtedly was a literate lady and there is no documentary evidence about any torture having been made by the accused persons for reasons of non-fulfilment of the dowry. Further, from the evidence of D.W.1, I find that he has very truthfully stated about the performance of the last rites and also the fact that the prosecution party was absent in the said ceremonies. D.W.2, who is doctor of the Referral Hospital, stated that the deceased had died on account of diarrhoea and he had also issued a death certificate in regard to it, which is Exhibit A. 6. In view of the quality of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, I am not inclined to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the basis of such evidence. Also in my view the defence has been able to satisfactorily create a doubt as to how the deceased had died. In my opinion, the evidence of D.W.2 is also clinching on the point that the deceased had died on account of diarrhoea and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence just because she had appeared on behalf of the defence. It has repeatedly been held that the defence witnesses have to be accorded as much value as the prosecution witnesses if the court finds them trustworthy. 7. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 4 15.4.1997 by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Sessions Trial No.54 of 1996 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 30th June, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )