Prosecution must prove unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty/harassment for dowry 'soon before' death beyond reasonable doubt to invoke dowry death presumption; general allegations and lack of proximate nexus fail to attract it.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2010 and 07.01.2011 respectively passed by learned Addl. District & Session Judge, F.T.C. 3^rd, Banka in S.T. No. 1302 of 2004 Tr. No. 483 of 2010 arising out of Amarpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004, G.R. Case No. 164 of 2004, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 304B/34 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Further the appellants were convicted under Section 201/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and in default of payment of fine further sentence of six months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the informant Sadhana Kumari was married to the Appellant No. 1 (Chandan Kumar alias Mantu) on 11.05.2003 and at the time of marriage his daughter went to her sasural with articles including ornaments and furniture etc. After one week her daughter came to her Mayaka Narayanpur. The accused Chandan Kumar used to come the house of the informant and demand Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry from the informant’s daughter. On 28.12.2003 after the Bidai of his daughter the Appellant No. 1(Chandan Kumar) took his daughter to his home i.e. Katahara. On telephone the informant’s daughter told him that the accused Ram Kishun Singh (Father in law), Smt. Kaushalya Devi (Mother in law), Chandan Kumar (Husband) and Bhaisur Shankar Singh & Manoj Kumar Singh had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, and if the same is not fulfilled they will kill & throw her into Kojhi Dam. On 19.02.2004, when the informant made a call on telephone to his daughter at her sasural, one lady received the phone, but after hearing the name of the informant she disconnected the phone. Then on doubt the informant along with some persons went to Kathara on 20.02.2004. There he found that the house of the accused Ram Kishun Singh was locked. On inquiry from the villagers it came to his knowledge that his daughter was killed. Then the informant lodged this case before the local police by way of a written application. Based on the written application of the informant, Amarpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004 was registered against the appellants and others under Section 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code

3. After completion of investigation and on the basis of materials collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer of this case submitted charge-Sheet No. 34 of 2004 dated 30.05.2004 against the appellants under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The C.J.M., Banka took cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions.

4. The learned trial court after perusal of material collected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant took cognizance, thereafter, the charges were framed on 26.07.2006 under Sections 304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants, which was explained to the appellants, to which, they pleased not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether thirteen witnesses. They are:-

(I) PW-1 Arun Mahto; (ii) PW-2 Bal Krishna Thakur; (iii) PW-3 Arjun Mandal; (iv) P.W.-4 Pradumn Mandal; (v) P.W.-5 Mahesh Mahto; (v