Prosecution must establish allegations of dowry death beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and unjustified delays lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV ROY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vishesh Kumar Singh, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Anand Mohan Mehta for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred: “against the order of conviction dated 17.02.2004 under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 304(B)/34 and 201 of IPC and order of sentence dated 19.2.04 passed in Sessions Case No. 362/1994 (Tr. No.109/02,G.R. 1766/1991, Dharahara P.S. Case No.121/1991) by Sri Paras Nath Sinha, Presiding Officer, Additional Fast Track Court, Munger, whereby and whereunder appellant has been held guilty for the offence under section 3/4 of the and under section 304(B)/34 and 201 of the IPC and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years under section 304(B) of IPC. No separate sentence has been passed under section 201 of IPC and 3/4 of the .”

3. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as also Section 304 B/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years vide an order dated 17.02.2004 by the presiding officer, Additional Court (Fast Track, Munger).

4. The matrix of facts giving rise to present appeal is/are as follows:

5. The appellant was married to the informant’s sister Premlata Devi on 06.06.1987 and the second marriage ceremony (Dwiagman) took place on 10.05.1989. However, she was tortured for dowry of Rs. 20,000/- immediately after the second marriage as a result she was brought to the parents’ home.

6. Later, the in-laws requested to send the lady to their home, though the informant was reluctant but on assurance of no ill treatment, she went to her in-laws house. However, the torture continued and on 06.07.1990, they came to know that she has been murdered.

7. They rushed to the place where it was informed that the lady has been cremated and got further information that insecticide consummation was the cause of the death. The Police forced the informant to sign a blank paper. Later, the informant filed complaint and thereafter on the direction of the S.P., Munger, the FIR lodged on 29.10.1999. The Police took up the investigation and later charge-sheet submitted which followed cognizance order dated 02.07.1994 by the learned CJM, Munger under the aforesaid sections. Later, the charges were framed and the case went for trial.

8. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution put forward following witnesses:

(i) P.W.-1, Ramsahai Yadav;

(ii) P.W.-2, Jaiprakash Kumar;

(iii) P.W.-3, Balkisun Pandit;

(iv) P.W.-4, Mahendra Prasad Sah;

(v) P.W.-5, Md. Saukat Ali;

(vi) P.W.-6, Md. Nausad;

(vii) P.W.-7, Chaukidar Fakira Paswan;

(viii)P.W.-8, Hawaldar Akhlesh Nath Chaudhary;

(ix) P.W.-9, Dy.S.P. Lalmohan Prasad;

(x) P.W.-10, S.I. Satish Chandra Sinha.

9. The important exhibits marked were:

(i) Exhibit-1- the FIR;

(ii) Exhibit-2- Fardbayan of Balkishun Pandit;

(iii) Exhibit-5- Petitions before the S.P. Munger and Hon’ble Chief Minister, Bihar;

(iv) Exhibit-8- Supervision note;

10. P.W.-1, Ram Sahai Yadav is the Advocate’s Clerk who proved the formal FIR.

11. P.W.-2, Jaiprakash Kumar and P.W.-3, Balkishun Pandit were examined as material witnesses of this case. P.W. 2 is the cousin brother of the informant, Balkishun Pandit (P.W.-3). According to the P.W.-2, he alongwith the brother had gone to meet the deceased earlier, but the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law did not allow them to meet. Anyhow, they came across her on 01.06.1990 who informed that they are demanding Rs. 20,000/- else, she may be killed.

12