JUDGMENT

1. The appellants, above named, have challenged their conviction for offences under Sections 304B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 05.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 334 of 2007, arising out of Barauli P.S. Case No. 105 of 1996. By the impugned order of sentence of the same date rigorous imprisonment for eight years along with fine of rupees twenty thousand was awarded for offence under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of rupees five thousand was awarded for offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fines six months simple imprisonment was ordered. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently against both the appellants.

2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report of PW 4 Rajendra Prasad is that his daughter 'S' was married with co-accused Pushpendra Kumar on 27.02.1996. After marriage S. went to her matrimonial house. 16 days thereafter the informant went to meet S. She complained that her husband Pushpendra, father-in-law (appellant Raj Kumar Prasad), the mother-in-law and maternal uncle of Pushpendra i.e., appellant Indradeo Prasad always torture and they demand a Colour TV and Gold Chain.The informant requested the family members especially Nageshwari Devi, the mother-in-law, but the family members threatened that if Colour TV and Gold Chain would not be provided S. would have to face the consequences. One month thereafter the informant came to the matrimonial house of her daughter, she again made complaint of torture for no fulfillment of the aforesaid demand. She further disclosed that the accused threatened her to be killed and Pushpendra would get married with another lady. On 11.05.1996 Rama Shankar Prasad (not examined) and Mr. Ashok Sahu (not examined) of the matrimonial village informed that S has been killed by her matrimonial relations and the dead body got cremated. Thereafter, the informant came to the matrimonial village of S and the people informed that S was done to death by the family members. Thereafter, the informant went to adjoining village Jagarnathpur i.e., the village of appellant Indradeo Prasad because Indradeo Prasad was mediator in the marriage and on the next day the matter was reported to the police. The written report is Exhibit-1 and the formal FIR is Exhibit-2.

3. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and others.

4. The husband of the deceased was found a juvenile along with his sister and proceeding against them was conducted before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gopalganj. The Board giving benefit of doubt, acquitted to the husband and sister-in-law of the deceased.

During trial prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. PW 1 Shiv Prasad Sah of the village of occurrence deposed that he heard about death of the daughter-in-law of appellant Raj Kumar. He went there and found the dead body. The daughter-in-law of appellant Raj Kumar died of illness. Thereafter, her parents were informed. The father and maternal uncle came and participated in cremation of the dead body. After 3 to 4 days of Sradh the informant asked for return of the articles and money given to the deceased at the time of marriage and on non-refund the criminal case was lodged.

PW 2 Kamla Sah deposed that the daughter-in-law of appellant Raj Kumar Prasad was ill since long. After her death her parents had come and all had participated in the cremation. There was no demand of any dowry either at the time of marriage or thereafter. The deceased was happy in her matrimonial house. The family members were behaving with her properly. Dr. Alauddin had treated the deceased before her death. The doctor deposed that since the village is in remote area and it was inconvenient to reach Gopalganj or Siwan, hence, the victim could not be treated at those places.

PW 3 Narad Tiwari deposed that the