JUDGMENT

1. The appellants of Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 393 of 2020 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 375 of 2020 preferred these appeals against the judgment and order dated 03.01.2020 and 04.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. I), Banka in Sessions Trial No. 844 of 2007/Trial No. 48 of 2017) arising out of Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 26 of 2007 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. I) convicted the appellants under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. The appellants were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the convicts were directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Therefore, both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. On the basis of fardbeyan of P.W.5 (Tuntun Sah) Dhoraiya P.S. Case No. 26 of 2007 was registered under Section 304(B) and 34 of the I.P.C. P.W.5 in his statement narrated that his sister Geeta Devi (deceased) was married to Bhagwat Sah about six years ago. At the time of marriage, many articles including cash were gifted to Bhagwat Sah. He also paid Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to Bhagwat Sah. The informant purchased one katha land in the name of Bhagwat Sah for the purpose of constructing a house in village Gandhigram, PS.-Pathargama, District-Godda but the husband of his sister and other family members continued to torture his sister due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. They were demanding T.V. and CD. Apanchayati was also held in which the Sarpanch and the District Committee Members took part. On their persuasion, his sister (deceased) was sent to her sasural but after sometime the informant got information from the villager of Hasay that his sister Geeta Devi was done to death by the accused. After having received such information, the informant went to the house of his sister and found her lying dead. A dead body was kept on the cot. There were some signs of assault on her left cheek. A sign of blackness was also present there. The blood and froth were oozing from the mouth and the nose of the deceased. The husband and other in-laws of the deceased were not present in their house. The informant further disclosed that due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, the accused persons murdered his sister. The police took up the investigation after having registered the case and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet under Section 304(B) and 34 of the I.P.C. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed the court of sessions.

3. During course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. P.W.5 (Tuntun Sah) is the informant of the case. P.W.1 (Pankaj Kumar Jha), P.W.2 (Birbal Sah) who put his signature on the statement of P.W.5), P.W.3 (Shiva Sharma), P.W.4 (Jai Prakash Sah), P.W.6 (Raju Sah), P.W.8 (Sarwan Sah) and P.W.7 (Dr. Sunil Kumar Jha), who held postmortem on the dead body of the deceased.

4. Having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. I) found and held the accused guilty under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred these appeals.

5. Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals assailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submitted that the judgment and order is bad in law as well as on facts. The doctor (P.W.7) did not find any external or internal injuries on the dead body. The doctor, however, preserved the viscera but the viscera report was never received in the court. The doctor opined that the deceased died of natural death. The first ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. is that the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury o