The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove that the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment 'soon before her death' in connection with dowry demands to secure a conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

S.K. Sharma. J.

Etwari Mahton and Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 433 of 1988 arising out of Giriak P.S. Case No. 80 of 1987, whereby the appellant No.2 Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto has been found guilty under Section 304-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and two years respectively and appellant No. 1 Etwari Mahton has been found guilty under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been se 1tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for two years. Appellant No. 1 Etwari Mahton is father of Appellant No. 2 Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto.

2. The prosecution case is outcome of a complaint petition No. 349 C/1987 (Ext. 3) filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bihar Sharif, The complaint was referred to police under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and formal First Information Report was registered. In course of investigation the complainant filed a protest petition (Ext.1). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against these two appellants and other two accused Sudama Devi and Sanju Devi. The trial Court has not found other two accused persons guilty and both the ladies, namely Sudama Devi and Sanju Devi were acquitted.

3. The allegation relates to an occurrence of the night of 19.10.1987 at 8.00 p.m. According to the complainant Gandhi Mahton @ Chamru Mahton PW 6, his daughter Manju Devi was married to Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto of Village Issua, police station Giriyak three years earlier. The Gauna was performed in the preceding Falgun month. On 02.10.1987 Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto came to the informant and demanded Rs. 5000/- for getting an employment. The informant expressed his inability to pay (he amount in a short time. The accused Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto became infuriated and threatened him for dire consequences. When the hot talk by appellant No. 2 was being given then witness Somari Mahto was present. Kari Devi, the daughter-in-law of the informant Gandhi Mahton @ Chamru Mahton, had gone to her parents' house at Issua. One day prior to the occurrence, she was at her parents' house. Kart Devi is Nanad of the deceased. One day prior to the occurrence. Kart Devi had been to meet Manju Devi (the deceased) and when she had gone there then she had seen that Manju Devi was being assaulted by all the accused persons. Namely, these two appellants and wife of Etwari Mahton and elder daughter of Etwari Mahton. At that time she was being pressed by Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto. Kart Devi cried, upon which she was caught, by the accused Etwari, Mahton, his wife and his elder daughter. She was bolted inside the house. In the next morning, Kali Devi went to her father-in-law's house and told that Manju Devi (the deceased) was killed and her dead body had been made to disappear. The complainant was going to police station to inform this but in the way he met with Somari Mabton and Baleshwar Mahto and these two persons also told that they have seen Etwari Mahton and, Biresh Prasad @ Biresh Mahto carrying the corpse along with two others and on query Etwari Mahton divulged that his daughter-in-law had died and they were carrying the dead body for cremation. The police did not register the case so the complaint case has been filed. The complaint on being referred, the First Information Report was registered and charge-sheet was submitted. The cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the four accused persons were charged under Sections 304-B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded their innocence so the trial proceeded.

4. The defence of the accused was of false implication and also that Manju Devi (the deceased) was not killed rather her death was natural and no demand of dowry was ever made.

5. The trial Court after considering the evid