Rudra Prakash Mishra, J. – Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Supragya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2023 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-I, Masaurhi in Sessions Trial No. 393 of 2020, (Arising out of Pipra P.S. case No. 47 of 2020, G.R. No. 761 of 2020) whereby the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges by the learned Trial Court.

3. The prosecution case, on the basis of handwritten application of the informant dated 18.07.2020 addressed to the Officer-in-charge of Pipra police station, is that marriage of his daughter Rupa Kumari, aged about 22 years, was solemnized in February, 2019 with Mahesh Yadav of village Basiawa after giving dowry as per his capacity. After marriage, his daughter always used to tell that her sasural people insist for demand of Rs. five lakhs and one katha land as dowry and they also used to torture her. The informant further stated that many a times he talked to sasural people and make them understand. The informant further stated that father-in-law, mother-in-law, nanad and husband jointly killed her daughter. On 18.07.2020 at about 11.a.m., he got information that his daughter has been killed by sasural people by hanging. On receiving such information, he reached along with his family members at 1 p.m. at village Basiawa and saw dead body of his daughter lying on cot. The informant stated that for non-fulfilment of dowry, his daughter has been killed by father-in-law, mother-in-law, nanad and husband jointly by hanging herself.

4. On the basis of handwritten application of the informant, Pipra P.S. Case No. 47 of 2020 was registered and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted against accused Mahesh Yadav and Priyanka Kumari while charge-sheet was submitted against respondent Nos. 2 and 3/accused. Thereafter, cognizance was taken against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons on which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight (08) witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Paras Nath Rai (informant), P.W.2 Satyender Kumar (I.O.), P.W.3 Sudeshwar Rai, P.W.4 Ram Ekbal Rai, P.W.5 Lalita Devi @ Lali Devi (mother of the deceased), P.W.6 Dr. Shiv Ranjan Kumar (doctor who conducted post-mortem examination), P.W.7 Awdhesh Prasad Singh and P.W.8 Shyam Nandan Ram. Certain documents were also exhibited viz. Ext. P-1- signature of informant on his application, Ext. P-2 endorsement on fardbeyan, Ext. P-3 signature of witness on fardbeyan, Ext. P-4 signature of Ram Ekbal Rai on fardbeyan and Ext. P-5 postmortem report. Defence has also examined one witness namely Pappu Kumar as D.W.1 in support of its case. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court has acquitted both of them.

6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/ informant has submitted that learned trial Court has not considered the presumption raised under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act(hereinafter referred to be referred as “Evidence Act”. He further submits that as per Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as “I.P.C.”), if the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of Section 304-B of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt then automatically presumption can be raised under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The witnesses, in the present case, have supported the prosecution case but the trial Court has given finding that in this case, there is no eye witness and the I.O., who was examined, stated