The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to substantiate charges beyond all reasonable doubts, particularly in cases involving dowry demand and cruelty/harassment, and the necessity for consistent, trustworthy, and reliable evidence.

PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 05.11.2011 and order of sentence dated 09.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Nalanda at Biharshariff in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2009 arising out of Rajgir P.S. Case No. 69 of 2008 instituted under Sections 304B and 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and also slapping him with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month and also sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that Rajgir P.S. Case No. 69 of 2008 was instituted under Sections 304(B) and 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant, namely, Akash Kumar @ Chunnu, Suraj Kumar Chaudhary, Sri Chand Chaudhary, wife of Sri Chand Chaudhary and Dhannu Chaudhary on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Mahendra Chaudhary, son of Late Sri Banshi Chaudhary, resident of village-Dargah Road, Sanichra More, P.S.-Sultanganj, Patna City, District-Patna recorded by S.I. Arun Kumar Singh, S.H.O. Rajgir Police Station on 11.05.2008 at 09:30 A.M. at Village Birchait, with the allegation in succinct that, he had performed marriage of his daughter, namely, Renu Kumari with Akash Kumar @ Chunnu on 15.02.2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals and spent Rs. 1,50,000/- in the marriage. On the fateful night at 12 P.M., he received telephonic information that his daughter has been afflicted with diarrhoea and her condition is precarious. On the said information, he along with his son, Deena Kumar Chaudhary, Nephew Bijay Kumar Chaudhary and two-four other persons arrived at Village Birchait on the following morning and found his daughter dead and her entire body blackened. On grilling the locals, he learnt that her husband Akash Kumar @ Chunnu, her brother-in-law Suraj Kumar Chaudhary, maternal grand-father of her husband Dhannu Chaudhary, her father-in-law Sri Chand Chaudhary and her mother-in-law eliminated her daughter by administering her poison for dowry demand and gave wrong information to him on telephone. They absconded from their house on their arrival. Further allegation is that they used to subject her to torture for demand of Rs. 50,000/- from his daughter and due to not coughing up the demand, they have poisoned his daughter to death.

4. The aforesaid case was investigated by the Police. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded further statement of the informant, statement of the witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem, obtained post mortem report and sent the viscera of the deceased to F.S.L. for its chemical examination. On conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, namely, Akash Kumar @ Chunnu.

5. On receiving the charge-sheet and the case diary and on perusing the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for its trial. Charge against the appellant was framed under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has been able to examine altogether nine prosecution witne