JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant-Jitendra Tiwary has challenged, herein, the judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2017 and order of sentence dated 01.11.2017 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali has found the appellant guilty for offences under Sections 304B and 201 IPC and has sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for offence under Section 304B IPC and rigorous imprisonment of two years for offence under Section 201 IPC. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The impugned judgment and sentences were passed in S.Tr.No.392 of 2015 arising out of Lalganj PS. Case No.87 of 2013.

2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the Fardbeyan of P. W.7 Paras Nath Mishra, is that his daughter Nitu Kumari was married with the appellant in November, 2012. The victim went to her Sasural and after 2-3 months the named accused persons including the appellant started torturing even by physical assault for non-fulfillment of their demand for more dowry in the form of Colour T.V. and Gold Chain. The victim had telephonically informed to P.W.7 about the aforesaid act. Thereafter P.W.7 alongwith his wife Meena Devi (P.W.6) and other relatives went to village Kharauna of the appellant and requested the family members including to the appellant to not to torture the victim for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. However, the appellant and his mother insisted that until their demand is fulfilled, the torture would continue.

On 01.06.2013 at about 7.00 AM, the informant got information that in laws of his daughter have committed her murder. Then the informant alongwith other family members reached near village Kharauna and found that near Primary School, Lal Basanta, a crowd had gathered. When informant and others went there, the dead body of the victim was found in a plastic bag. The informant and others identified the dead body. The face of the victim was black, the eyes were protruded and there was ligature mark around her neck. According to informant, the in laws had committed her murder and just to screen the evidence of crime, had packed the dead body in a plastic bag and thrown away in the field side.

3. The First Information Report is Ext.-1 and on the basis whereof, the formal FIR of Lalganj P.S.CaseNo.87 of 2013was registered and the same is marked as Ext.3. After investigation, the police sent up the appellant for trial and investigation against others was kept pending.

4. During trial, prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W.1 Amrit Mishra is full brother of the victim. P.W.2 Rubi Devi is wife of P.W. 1. P.W.3 Balwant Mishra is another brother of the victim. P.W.6 Meena Devi is mother and P.W.7 Paras Nath Mishra is father of the victim. P.W.4 Randhir Kumar Bhagat is Investigating Officer of the case and P.W. 5 Dr.Prabhat Kumar had performed postmortem examination on the dead body of the victim on 01.06.2013 itself at 5.00 P.M.

5. Ms. Bela Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution made disclosure of the demand of dowry and torture for the same for the first time after death of the victim. Prosecution witnesses have admitted that they had not informed to anyone including the Mukhiya regarding demand and torture. Learned counsel contends that no independent witness has come forward to substantiate the charge of demand of dowry and torture for non-fulfillment of the same or to prove any other ingredient of offence Section 304 B IPC. Only the family members have turned up as prosecution witnesses. Reliance has been placed on the case of Gurdeep Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 408. According to prosecution witnesses, the marriage of the victim was solemnized peacefully and happily, hence there was no demand on the date of marriage. Moreover, from the prosecution evidence, it would be clear that the parties belong to very poor starta of the society. Hence, it is unbelievable that there would be demand of Gold Chain and Colour T.V. etc. Just to harass, false case h