Prosecution must prove essential elements of dowry death, including cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

We have heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP for the State.

2. The appellants, who are the mother-in-law and the husband of the deceased, have been convicted under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 18.07.2018 passed by learned FTC-I, Banka and by the order of the same date, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for life.

3. The mother of the deceased/ Radhiya Devi(PW-6) has lodged the fardbeyan on 23.04.2012 alleging that her daughter/ deceased was married to appellant No. 2 three years ago. However, she was not treated well in her matrimonial home on account of her bad looks and not bringing sufficient dowry. She was tortured and was threatened that appellant No. 2 would be remarried to another person. On 23.04.2012, appellant No. 2 informed the mother/ PW-6 that the deceased had died and that she and the family members should come immediately. On such information, she along with Kamli Devi, Shakuntala Devi, Naresh Yadav and Chaturgun Yadav went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and found her dead on a cot. On enquiry from the neighbourhood, it was learnt that that appellants had killed the deceased and they were making attempts that creating a situation so that it is understood to be case of self-hanging.

4. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan statement of PW-6, a case vide Chandan (Anandpur) P.S. Case No. 43 of 2012 dated 23.04.2012 was registered for investigation for offences under Sections 341, 323, 304-B, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for Trial.

5. The Trial Court, after having examined eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

6. It may be relevant here to state that out of the persons who were named by PW-6 as having gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased, only Chaturgun Yadav (PW-4) was examined. Rest all others were curiously not brought to the witness-stand on behalf of the prosecution.

7. Pappu Yadav (PW-1) is only the signatory to the inquest report (Exhibit-1) and has expressed complete ignorance about the cause of the occurrence.

8. PWs-2, 3, and 5, viz., Ramanand Prasad Bhagat, Kuldeep Prasad Yadav and Mahadev Yadav have been declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case.

9. Chaturgun Yadav (PW-4), who is the uncle of the deceased, has though supported the prosecution case but his evidence lacks in material particulars which could help the prosecution to prove its case. He has reiterated that on 23.04.2012 at about 6:00 AM, the appellant No.2 informed him on telephone that the deceased had died. He along with Kamli Devi, Sakuntala Devi, Radhiya Devi (PW-6) and others went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and found her dead. She was lying on a cot. No body was present in the house. The villagers told him that appellant No. 2 had tried to throttle the deceased whereas appellant No. 1 (mother-in-law) had administered poison to her. He also alleged that an attempt was being made to show that the deceased had hanged herself. He has also stated that he saw the deceased hanging.

10. This obviously is a wrong statement as he, in the first part of the deposition, has averred that he along with others had seen the deceased lying on a cot. A motorcycle was being demanded by the appellants. Within 15-20 minutes, he has claimed, many persons came to the matrimonial home of the deceased. Along with him, there was other villagers, viz., Jalandhar Yadav, Sikandar Yadav, Bhikhari Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav, Mahadev Yadav, Barsati Yadav and Shiv Lakhan Yadav. None of them have been examined at the Trial. His niece (deceased) always used to tell him that there was a persistent demand of a motorcycle. However, no such complaint was ever made by him or by anyone of the membe