The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of credible evidence, consistency in witness statements, and timely filing of cases in establishing the guilt of the accused in dowry death cases.

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.717 of 2015, wherein Mala, Sanjay Kumar and Prakash Kumar @ Dhiraj are the appellants, Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.748 of 2015, wherein Manju Devi @ Manju Sinha and Jiwachh Prasad are the appellants and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.768 of 2015 wherein Anand Kumar @ Niraj is the appellant commonly originate against the judgment of conviction dated 09.10.2015 and order of sentence 10.10.2015 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.731 of 2006 as well as Sessions Trial No.549 of 2007 (amalgamated) whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304B of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years, under Section 498A I.P.C., under Section 120B of the I.P.C. for which, no separate sentence has been inflicted and further, directing that the period having undergone during course of trial will be set off as provided under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. on account thereof, have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Before coming to mainstream, it is apparent from the record that Sessions Trial No.731 of 2006 commenced only against the appellant/ accused Sanjay Kumar wherein charge was framed on 18.07.2007 and PW-1, Seema Srivastava was examined on 03.09.2007. After submission of supplementary chargesheet, Sessions Trial No.549 of 2007 commenced against the accused/ appellants Manju Devi @ Manju Sinha, Mala, Prakash Kumar @ Dhiraj, Jiwachh Prasad, Anand Kumar @ Niraj wherein charge was framed on 10.12.2007 and then thereafter, both the Sessions Trial have been directed to amalgamate and then thereafter, Seema Srivastava has been re-examined as PW-1. In the aforesaid background, procedure adopted by the learned lower Court happens to be irregular, however, did not cause prejudice on account of re-examining Seema Srivastava as PW-1, even after amalgamation.

3. Sanjiv Kumar (PW-6) filed Complaint Case No.2607 on 17.10.2005, against all the accused/appellants showing the date of occurrence 05.09.2005, place of occurrence to be house of the accused with an allegation that his sister Nitu Kumari was married with Anand Kumar @ Niraj on 29.04.2005 at Vishwanath Chaudhary, Vivah Bhawan, Banaras Bank Chowk. During course of negotiation of marriage, father of Anand Kumar had demanded dowry and the details thereof, have been incorporated on a paper in his handwriting, which was handed over to him (list attached). As per list, he had handed over the articles costing Rs.5,00,000/-. After marriage, his sister had gone to her sasural on 30.04.2005 and stayed there. After staying for a week, the accused persons began to torment her as, according to them, the articles were not at all given as per list. So, directed her to bring Rs. One Lac from her Naihar, otherwise it will not be good for her. Whenever complainant and his family members visited the place of his sister, they were humiliated and further, there was persisted demand of Rs.One Lac. Complainant and his family members shown their inability to pay the amount on account of their poor financial condition. The torturous conduct of the accused persons was being communicated by his sister through letter and further, she had shown apprehension of her life in case of non-fulfilment of demand. On 05.09.2005, they heard rumour with regard to her death, whereupon he had gone to sasural of his sister where people have said that dead body has been taken away to Sikandarpur for funeral. Informant rushed to the cremation ground and found dead body of his sister completely burnt. Seeing the situation, his mental condition imbalanced. Even then, he tried to know about the actual affair and during course thereof, so many kinds of explanation has been given creating suspicion. Then thereafter, he returned back. After gathering information during the intermediary period, he came to know that his sister has been murdered on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It