The prosecution must prove the marriage within 7 years, provide evidence for the cause of death, and establish ill-treatment or torture before the occurrence in cases under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri S.B. Verma, learned counsel for the State.

2. The sole appellant has filed this criminal appeal for setting aside the judgment dated 23.08.1994 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Session Trial No. 140/1992 whereby the present appellant has been held guilty and accordingly convicted under Sections 304B, 4989A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498A and three years under Section 201 I.P.C., all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. Before we proceed to decide the matter it would also be proper to place on record that in this very case the co-accused Sidheshwar Yadav was also found guilty and was convicted accordingly in terms stated hereinabove. He had preferred Cr.APP (DB) No. 429/1994 before this Court but during pendency of the appeal the said Sidheshwar Yadav expired on 17.01.2009. This Court vide order dated 30.01.2018 passed in Cr.APP.(DB) No. 429/1994 has held the said appeal stood abated due to the death of the sole appellant in the said case.

4. In the present appeal, the perusal of records of the trial court would show that on 13.06.1991, the informant Bimal Kumar Yadav (P.W.2) lodged a written complaint (Ext.3) with the Officer-in-Charge of Bikram Police Station alleging that his sister Chandramani Devi was married to Bindeshwari Mandal (Appellant), however she was killed on 12.06.1991 by the accused Bindeshwari Mandal, his father Sidheshwar Yadav, his younger brother Ram Raj Yadav and the another brother Ram Karan Yadav, all named in the F.I.R. by burning her to death. It is alleged that the accused persons were asking for Hero Honda Motorcycle which was never agreed to at the time of marriage. The informant alleged that on 11.06.1991 when he had gone to get the Bidaigiri of his sister, the accused persons ill-treated him and asked him to leave the house. The informant allegedly reached his house at 10.00 A.M. but on the same day at about 3.00 P.M. his sister was burnt to death by kerosene oil. The informant is said to have reached village Andhrachowki, his sister was not found there. He came to know from the co-villagers that his sister had been burnt to death.

5. After investigation police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 498A, 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the offences were triable by court of session, the learned A.C.J.M., Danapur vide his order dated 12.03.1992 committed the records to the court of session and thereupon vide order dated 31.03.1992, the learned Sessions Judge, Patna registered the session case. It appears that ultimately vide order dated 10.01.1994 charges were framed under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused alternatively under Sections 304(B), 498A and Section 201 I.P.C. Both the charge-sheeted accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. Before the learned Sessions Judge in course of trial only 3 witnesses could be examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 is Rajdeo Prasad who happens to be the uncle of the deceased. P.W.2 is Bimal Kumar Yadav (informant) and P.W.3 is Shiv Narayan Yadav. In course of trial, prosecution proved Exhibit-1, i.e., signature of Rajdeo Prasad on seizure list; Exhibit-2 the signature of Siasaran Yadav on seizure list and Exhibit-3 is the written report.

7. The defence produced through D.W.1 Upendra Kumar some documentary evidences which have been marked Exhibit-A to A/3, those are medical examination report with respect to the treatment of the deceased. Exhibit-B to B/3 are the prescription of the various doctors and Exhibit-C is copy of Annexure-1, i.e., report of death in Patna Municipal Corporation by the appellant on 12.06.1991.

Finding of the Trial Court

8. The learned trial court has