JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The sole appellant faced trial for offences under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. and was found guilty by the learned Trial Judge and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 304B I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report (Ext.2) of Manohar Sao (P.W.4) is that the daughter of the informant was married in Baisakh (April-May, 1998) with the appellant. After few months, the daughter-Punam informed that her in-laws including the appellant demand different articles as dowry. The informant went to her matrimonial house and pacified the matter. After few days, the informant again got information that the in-laws are torturing her for non-fulfillment of dowry demand and the daughter is leading a life of torture and suffocation. The informant again went to his daughter, she detailed the demand by in-laws and was weeping, she stated that the in-laws are demanding scooter and threatens to kill her on non-fulfillment of dowry demand. Thereafter, the daughter of the informant came back to the house of the informant and she disclosed what was happening with her to all the family members. However, the informant again consoled her and sent her to her Sasural. On 25.04.1999, the informant got information that his daughter is ill in her matrimonial house. Since strike of the public transport was going on on that day, the informant could not visit there rather in the next morning, received information that his daughter has died in Jamui hospital. When the informant reached at Jamui Hospital, he found the dead body. Postmortem examination was done on the dead body and thereafter dead body was handed over to the informant. The informant alleges that the in-laws including the appellant have committed her murder by poisoning. The in-laws, who were available in the hospital, fled away as soon as the informant reached there.

4. On the basis of written report dated 08.05.1999, Chandradeep P.S.Case No.67 of 1999 was registered under Sections 498A, 304B/34 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against six FIR named accused person including the appellant. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet only against the appellant on 03.10.2000 for offences under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. only and investigation was kept pending against other named accused person. On the same day i.e. 03.10.2000, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offences aforesaid wherein the charge-sheet was submitted. The case was triable by a court of Sessions, hence, it was committed for trial on 12.10.2001 and separate record was opened for those accused, against whom, the investigation was pending.

5. The learned Trial Judge framed charges for offences under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. on 11.01.2002.

6. The prosecution examined altogether five witnesses, P.W.1, Dr. S.K. Chaudhary had performed postmortem examination on the dead body of Punam Devi. The postmortem report is Ext.I. P.W.2-Manish Kumar is brother of the deceased. P.W.3, Radha Kumari is sister of the deceased and P.W.4-Manohar Sao, the informant of the case as well as father of the deceased. P.W.5-Madan Rai is a formal witness, who has proved the writing of the police on the formal FIR and formal FIR has been marked as Ext.6.

7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating materials coming in the prosecution evidence was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which the appellant denied and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. From the trend of cross examination to the witnesses of the occurrence, it appears that the suggestion of the defence is that there was dispute between accused and a co-villager of the informant and for that reason, false case was lodged. However, no defence evidence w