JUDGMENT

Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard Mr. A.K.Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned A.P. P., appearing for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2006 and order of sentence dated 01.03.2006 passed by Sri Vishwanath Sahu, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 16/2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence u/s 304 B/34 of the IPC.

3. Simariya P.S. Case No.66/2002 (G.R. No.568/2002) has been registered on 06.09.2002 under Section 304B/34 of the IPC on a typed report submitted by the informant-Keshar Yadav (P.W.4). As per allegation, the deceased, namely, Kanti Devi daughter of the informant was married to the accused in the year 1999 as per Hindu rites. Marriage gift has been given by the father of the deceased but still they demanded cycle, two she-buffalo and a sum of Rs.5,000/-, on non-fulfillment of the said demand, she has been harassed and finally she has been killed. Informant has received information that her daughter has been killed and thrown in the dam. On receiving such information, he rushed to the dam known as Chadram Dam where he saw the dead body of the deceased-Kanti Devi lying on a cot. Allegation has been made that his daughter has been killed either by administering poison or by adopting other methods and body has been thrown in the dam. As per statement of the informant, he saw the dead body of his daughter. It has been claimed that stomach was not swollen and blood was oozing from her nose.

4. On the basis of above F.I.R., investigation has been completed and the appellant has been charged under the above Sections. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken. Case has been committed to the court of sessions and ultimately, charge has been framed under Section 304B/34 of the IPC to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the prosecution story altogether fourteen witnesses have been examined.

6. P.W-1, Amrit Yadav-uncle of the informant, P.W.-2, Biraj Yadav maternal uncle of the deceased, P.W.-3, Gobardhan Yadav son of Rango Yadav, P.W.-4, Keshar Yadav the informant (father of the deceased) and P.W.-5, Shankar Yadav have supported the version as disclosed in the F.I.R.

7. P.W.-6, Tej Narayan Yadav, P.W.-7, Amir Yadav, P.W.-8, Sahdeo Yadav, P.W.-9, Tuleshwar Yadav and P.W.-12, Dhaneshwar Yadav have been declared hostile by the prosecution.

8. P.W.-10, Gowardhan Yadav @ Ganauri Yadav-uncle of the deceased and P.W.-11 Arjun Yadav is the co-villager, but they have not supported the incident although not declared hostile.

9. P.W.-13, Ravindra Tiwary, Pharmacist, Sadar Hospital, Chatra has produced the carbon copy of the post mortem report which has been marked as Ext.1.

10. P.W.-14, Ganesh Choudhary court constable is a formal witness, who has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Ext.-2.

11. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the cause of death has not been proved by producing any evidence. Even I.O. and the Medical Officer have not been examined. Neither post mortem report has been brought on record nor proved by anybody.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the para-10 of the judgment in the case of Tufani Bhuiyan & Ors. vrs. State of Jharkhand, (2006) 1 ECriC 324 (Jhr) which is quoted hereinbelow:

The prosecution wanted to establish that Kishun Bhuiyan died on account of homicidal violence but miserably failed to establish the said fact. The prosecution did not even attempt to examine the doctor nor did it produce the post mortem certificate issued by the doctor who conducted post mortem over the dead body. It is unfortunate that the prosecution failed in its duty in not examining the doctor and marking the post Mortem certificate as exhibit. We are at a loss to find as to why the prosecution did not examine the doctor who conducted autopsy and issued certifi