Distant relatives cannot be implicated in dowry death cases without specific evidence of involvement; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.)

Heard Mr. Vikas Ratan Bharti, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Jhanjharpur at Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2011 (G.R. No. 556/2003) arising out of Madhepur P.S. Case No. 169 of 2003, whereby the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted for offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Further, the learned Trial Court instead of imposing sentence for various offences upon Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for exonerating them.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/ informant has placed on record the copy of deposition of the prosecution witnesses as well as the copy of the FIR. Learned counsel referred to the same and thereafter submitted in the present case, the appellant/informant had lodged the FIR under Sections 498A, 304B / 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the concerned accused including the present private-respondents.

4. It is further submitted that after investigation, the Investigation Officer filed the charge-sheet against the sole accused before the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same under Section 209 of the Code. It is further submitted that before the Sessions Court, the prosecution had examined all together five witnesses and produced documentary evidence also. Thereafter, the statement of the accused persons, under Section 313 of the Code, came to be recorded. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order, whereby the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have been acquitted.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case through their deposition and they have stated that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and other accused persons (in-laws of the deceased) were present at the place of occurrence. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 used to demand dowry from the family of the deceased and that has also been stated in the deposition of the witnesses. As per Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, there are catena of judgments which show that in-laws of the deceased also play a vital role in the death of the deceased which is under the purview of dowry death.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the essential ingredients of provision of dowry death are fulfilled but the learned trial Court has failed to consider the relevant facts and acquitted the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Learned counsel referred the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sandeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in (2022) 14 SCC 544, Maya Devi & Anr. Vs. State of Harayana reported in (2015) 17 SCC 405 and Bansi Lal Vs. State of Harayana reported in (2011) 11 SCC 359, in support of the prosecution case and submitted that the onus of proof lies upon the accused as per Section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act but the trial Court has mechanically overlooked the well settled law.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the family of the accused persons continuously tortured the deceased for dowry since solemnization of marriage and burn injury of hundred per cent leading to death as per the postmortem report proves that only one person (husband) cannot cause such injury to a person by himself when all the family members are present in the same house and they are not involved in such crime.

8. PW-1 Ramkrishna Jha, who is the younger brother of the informant, has stated in his examination- in-chief that on 15.03.2012, his niece Gudiya was married to Pankaj Kumar Jha, in the year 1998. His brother had given dowry as per his capacity