IMPORTANT POINT
The lack of evidence to establish ill-treatment or torture for dowry shortly before the death of the deceased led to the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the judgment of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, the learned senior advocate for the appellant/informant who is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of respondent no. 2, who has been represented here by Sri Mukesh Kumar, the learned advocate. We have also heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the acquittal of respondent no. 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -1, Supaul vide judgment dated 20.07.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 101 of 2013 arising out of Balua Bazar P.S. Case No. 34/2012.

3. The respondent no. 2 is the husband of the deceased against whom charges were framed under Section 302 and 304B Indian Penal Code. The informant/appellant who has been examined as P.W. 4 had lodged the F.I.R. on 23.09.2012, alleging that he had married his daughter to the respondent no. 2 in the year 2006. Right since the marriage, he had been according all respect to the family of the appellant but on the exhortation of his parents and brother, the respondent no. 2 kept on demanding money every now and then. Uptill now, all the demands put up by respondent no. 2 had been fulfilled by him. About four days ago, the respondent no. 2 is said to have demanded a fridge. On 22.09.2012 as claimed by the appellant/informant, his daughter-in-law received a telephone call that the deceased had strangulated herself. On this information, the informant came to the conclusion that perhaps non-fulfillment of the demand of fridge has led to the deceased being killed by respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 had also threatened that it is very common in his village home to kill the wife and then marry again.

4. On the basis of the aforenoted report lodged by P.W. 4, Balua Bazar (Lalitgram) P.S. Case No. 34 of 2012 dated 23.09.2012 was registered for investigation for offences under section 304B, 120B and 34 of the IPC.

5. The police, however, on investigation found that no case under Section 304(B) of the IPC was made out but sent up the respondent no. 2 only from amongst the other accused persons, for trial for offence under Section 302/120B I.P.C. However, charges were framed against respondent no. 2 under both, Section 304B and 302 IPC.

6. The Trial Court after having examined eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and two on behalf of the defence, acquitted the respondent no. 2 of all charges.

7. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, the learned senior advocate for the appellant/informant has submitted that the Trial Court has adopted a very casual approach in dealing with the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. He has submitted that from the tenor of the judgment, it would appear that no attempt has been made by the Trial Court to assess the evidence in terms of Section 304B of the IPC under which section also charge was framed against respondent no. 2. With the charges under section 304B IPC, the provisions contained in Section 113B of Evidence Act would get triggered, which fact has been completely ignored by the Trial Court.

8. It has further been submitted that from the circumstances gathered through the deposition of witnesses, it would appear that soon before her death, the deceased was tortured by respondent no. 2 and others and even if the deceased committed suicide, the respondent no. 2 was responsible for goading her to do that. These aspects of the matter, Mr. Verma grieves, have been completely overlooked. The medical testimony, it has been asserted, is in complete conformity with the ocular version even though nobody has seen the occurrence. The deceased had antemortem injury on her body in the shape of a continuous ligature mark below the chin and above the neck which may not be possible in the case of hanging. It has been urged that in cases of hanging the ligature mark is always irregular unlike the regular ligature in case of strangulation. It has also been argued that with the recovery of a plastic rope in the room where the deceased wa