The prosecution must prove the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt, after which the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt by proving their innocence.

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2007 and order of sentence dated 13.07.2007 passed by Sri Birendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 81/2005 whereby, the appellants having been found guilty of offence under Section 304-B I.P.C, have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the daughter of the informant, namely, Manju Devi had been married with Umesh Rabidas, son of Babun Rabidas in May, 2004. It has been alleged that after marriage, Umesh Rabidas, his father Babun Rabidas and his mother Bundia Devi started demanding colour T.V. and motorcycle as dowry and in order to fulfill the dowry demand, the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Manju Devi started ill treating and torturing the informant's daughter. It has been further alleged that the son-in-law of the informant ousted the informant's daughter and left for Delhi. Later on the informant came at Nimadih and tried to make solution with the in-laws of his daughter and assured them to fulfill the demand. It has been further alleged that on 02.10.2004 at about 8.00 A.M. Babun Rabidas came at Jehnadih and told the informant that he has been called by his daughter. When the informant reached the house of his daughter, he found that his daughter was lying dead on a cot. He also found cut injuries on her neck and a blood stained knife by the side of the cot on the ground.

3. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Markacho P.S. Case No. 59 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Sections 304-B/120-B IPC against the five accused persons including theappellants.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against five accused persons as named in the written report showing the accused Umesh Rabidas as absconder. At the time of commitment, four accused persons were committed to the Court of Sessions and out of them, Dilip Rabidas was declared juvenile and the case record with respect to Dilip Rabidas was separated and sent to the Juvenile Court, Koderma and thereafter the charges were framed against three accused persons under Sections 304-B and 120-B I.P.C. The accused-appellants were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses including the doctor and the I.O. and learned Trial Court after considering the materials on record and also the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charge levelled against the accused persons to be proved under Section 304B I.P.C. and thereafter sentenced them to undergo imprisonment, as aforesaid. However, learned Trial Court acquitted the accused Champa Devi, who is the daughter of appellant No.1, from the charges levelled against her.

6. Basing upon the evidence of the witnesses of the occurrence, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment of conviction of learned Court below on the ground that there is no material on record against the appellants to prove the charges levelled against them. The appellants are old aged persons. There is no evidence against them with regard to demand of dowry and torture. There is no material exhibit and there is no F.S.L report. There is no material to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. The sentence of the appellants is excessive and it may be reduced.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the deceased was married in May, 2004 and occurrence took place in October, 2004 i.e. within five months. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the appellants. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impug