The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand of dowry, cruelty, and harassment soon before the death of the deceased, and the right of the accused to rebut the presumption of dowry death.

Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.

By the Judgment of conviction dated 09.08.1994 and sentence order dated 10.08.1994 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in Sessions Trial No.550 of 1992/177 of 1992, both the above stated appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code but the appellant no.1, namely, Bhushan Yadav has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the appellant no.2, namely, Jai Kishun Yadav has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the above stated sentences of both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.

2. P.W.4, namely, Subhash Prasad Yadav, on 28.08.1990 at about 04.30 P.M., went to Karai Police Station and gave his fardbeyan to P.W.5, stating therein that on the same day at about 07.00 A.M., his cousin uncle, namely, Suresh Yadav, came and gave information that his sister, namely, Subhadra Devi, was poisoned to death by her in-laws and they had taken away her dead body for cremation towards Fatuha. He further claimed that having got the aforesaid information, he along with his co-villagers Haricharan Yadav, Komal Yadav, Chandradeep Yadav and Suresh Yadav went to village Jharhapar and reached there at about 07.30 A.M. but no person was present in the in-laws' house of his sister. The neighbours of in-laws of his sister informed that his sister was poisoned to death by her in-laws and they had taken away her dead body for cremation towards Fatuha. P.W.4 further claimed that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with the appellant no.1 Bhushan Yadav in the year 1984 and her Gauna was performed in the year 1987. He further claimed that his sister visited several times to his house and whenever she came, she disclosed that her in-laws were demanding Rs. 6000/-, Philips Radio, Reley cycle etc. in dowry and they used to torture her physically and mentally due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand. P.W.4 further claimed that the appellant no.1 Bhushan Yadav had written two letters, demanding the above stated articles. P.W.4 annexed the photo-stat copy of the aforesaid two letters with his fard-beyan. Furthermore, P.W.4 claimed that his sister went to her sasural in the month of January, 1990 and, after that, he also visited several times to in-laws' house of his sister and requested them not to torture his sister. Furthermore, he claimed that on 19.08.1990, he visited the in-laws' house of his sister and met his sister, who started weeping to see him and requested him to take her away from her in-laws' house, otherwise she would be killed. P.W.4 further claimed that he talked to in-laws of his sister but they were not ready to give up their demands. P.W.4 claimed that the appellants and other inlaws of his sister committed the murder of his sister in the previous night and cremated her dead body at Fatuha.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of PW.4, Hilsa P.S. Case No.259 of 1990 for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and formal F.I.R. was drawn up on 29.08.1990 at about 10.15 A.M.

4. P.W.5 Nand Kishore Rai took the charge of investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, inspected the place of the occurrence and after completion of i