ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Both the appellants namely Amar Nath Mahto and Usha Devi have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. vide judgment of conviction dated 09.09.2016 and each one has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a further direction to set off in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to custodial period spent during course of trial vide order of sentence dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-4th, Patna in Sessions Trial No.1459 of 2013.

2. The factual matrix of the case as is evident on the basis of the fard-bayan of Saroj Devi (PW-9) on 02.03.2010 at P.M.C.H. before police officials of Pirbahore P.S. is that her daughter Aarti Devi was married with Dharmendra Mahto, son of Amar Nath Mahto. On 19.02.2010 at about 6.00 p.m. father in-law Amar Nath Mahto, Usha Devi, Fufia Sas and Chachia Sas lit fire over her body after sprinkling kerosene oil for the dowry. After coming to know about the same, she rushed and found her daughter badly burnt. Till then, her son-in-law, who happens to be driver also arrived and then, all of them admitted her at P.M.C.H. where she succumbed on 02.03.2010 during course of treatment. It has also been divulged that statement of her daughter had already been recorded by the Pirbahore P.S. at an earlier occasion at P.M.C.H. itself. It has also been disclosed that for the last three days her son-in-law had also left her daughter.

3. The aforesaid fard-bayan was forwarded to Digha P.S. on the basis of which, Digha P.S. Case No.57 of 2010 was registered on 08.03.2010, followed with an investigation as well as submission of chargesheet paving the way of trial, which ultimately concluded with finding of guilt and sentence against appellants, put under challenge.

4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial of the occurrence in a way as narrated by the prosecution. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded that deceased set ablaze herself after locking the door under suicidal approach out of reason best known to her whereupon was rescued after breaking the door, shifted to hospital immediately for treatment during course of which, unfortunately she died. However, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced in support thereof.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether ten PWs, out of whom, PW-1 Shankar Mahto, PW-2 Rajendra Prasad Mehta, PW-3 Kashi Mahto, PW-4 Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju, PW-5 Ranjit Mahto @ Ranju, PW-6 Madan Mishra, PW-7 Kumari Kanchan Sinha, PW-8 Dr. Arvind Kumar, PW-9 Saroj Devi and PW-10 Dharmendra Mahto. Side by side, had also exhibited the documents as Exhibit-1 statement of deceased, Aarti Devi, (dying declaration), Exhibit-2 and 2/1 post mortem report.

6. Though, as per roster appeal of the Year 2015 is being taken up for hearing, but considering the legal intricacies involved in this appeal so perceived during course of argument having made on behalf of appellants over their plea of bail, this appeal has been directed to be listed out of turn and accordingly, been heard.

7. From the record, it is evident that in the written report, there happens to be insertion in different pen concerning dowry which, keeping away for a moment, being confronted to the appellant on the score that having absence of date of marriage, demand of dowry, torture or cruelty meted out to the deceased since before her death by husband or relative of the husband, would not have justified in sailing of the trial under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. and in likewise manner, the statement of the victim which, on account of her death became dying declaration suggesting that on account of opposing the lascivious demand of her father-in-law to indulge in illicit relationship, she has been put on fire by the accused persons coupled with direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court to fram

Click Here to Read the rest of this document