The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, placing the burden of proving the fact especially within knowledge upon the accused, and the consequences of failing to provide a satisfactory explanation.

The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC") by judgment dated 31.10.2017, passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 473 of 2014, arising out of Daudpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2014, and by order dated 08.11.2017, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

2. The appellants are said to have killed the deceased, viz. Anju Devi who was married to appellant No. 7/Chandan Singh on 01.05.2013 in accordance with the Hindu religious rites. Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are related to appellant No. 7/Chandan Singh.

3. The First Information Report has been lodged by Umesh Kumar Singh (informant/P.W. 3), who is the father of the deceased. He has alleged in the First Information Report that he got his daughter married to appellant/Chandan Singh on 01.05.2013. After sometime of the marriage, the appellants, including her husband (appellant/Chandan Singh) started torturing her for additional dowry. On one or two occasions, the daughter of the informant was thrown out of her matrimonial home but with his intercession, she was again kept in the matrimonial home by the appellants. About four days prior to lodging of this case, P.W. 3 wanted to talk to his daughter but could not connect with her. He could somehow connect with the number of the mother-in-law of the deceased but the mother-in-law, on some pretext or the other, did not bring his daughter on line. Sensing some foul play, P.W. 3 made a telephonic enquiry with one of the neighbours of the appellants, who disclosed that the dead-body of a lady is lying near the railway tracks for about two days. On this information, he along with his relatives and the person who had given the aforesaid information to him went to the matrimonial home of his daughter and tried to inquire about her. The mother-in-law of the daughter told him that his daughter has run away from the house for the last three days. This raised suspicion in the mind of P.W. 3 and he along with other went near the railway tracks and found a dead-body of a women. It was stated by him that he could identify the dead-body to be of his daughter on the basis of her face, hair and the clothes which she was wearing. It was, therefore, alleged that for non-payment of additional dowry, his daughter was killed and in order to screen the offence, the dead-body was thrown near the railway tracks to give it a colour of accident on the tracks. He has further stated that the appellant No. 8, who is the brother-in-law of one of the brothers of the husband of the deceased, was also responsible for the same. He had threatened his daughter earlier also of killing her.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report lodged by P.W. 3, a case vide Daudpur P.S. Case No. 9 of 2014, dated 30.01.2014, was instituted for the offences under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 201 and 120(B)/34 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet, whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. The Trial Court, after examining seven witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and four on behalf of the defence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

7. While assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, learned Advocate for the appellants, has submitted that from the evidence on record, the case did not fall within the category of dowry death case and thus, the conviction and sentence under Sections 304(B) of the IPC was totally unwarranted.

8. In support of the aforesaid argument, it was submitted that but for a vague statement in the First Information Report, in a general way, that the deceased was tortured for additional dowry, no material was brought on record even through the mouth of the witnesses for concluding that the dece