JUDGMENT :

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

1. In Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2010, the appellants, namely, Shiv Charan Mahato, Sharad Chandra Mahato and Laltu Mahato have been convicted under section 304-B/34 IPC. Shiv Charan Mahato and Laltu Mahato have suffered the sentence of R.I. for life under section 304-B/34 IPC and Sharad Chandra Mahato was sentenced to R.I. for 10 years for the said offence.

2. Raibu Mahato, the father of Sumitra Devi, is the informant of this case. On the basis of his fardbeyan recorded on 22.10.2009 at about 12:15 hrs. in the Emergency Ward of M.G.M Hospital, Jamshedpur, Seraikella P.S. Case No. 101 of 2009 was registered under section 304-B/34 IPC against Shiv Charan Mahato, Sharad Chandra Mahato, Laltu Mahato and Phulmati Devi, the mother-in-law. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the above-named accused persons and they have faced the trial on the charge of causing dowry death of Sumitra Devi; during the trial the mother-in-law has died.

3. The case of the prosecution is that Sumitra Devi was continuously harassed and tortured by the accused persons in connection to demand of motorcycle and in the night of 21.10.2009 the accused persons assaulted Sumitra Devi and set her on fire. She suffered serious burn injuries and succumbed to death the next day at M.G.M. Hospital, Jamshedpur, where she was taken for treatment. The case setup by the accused persons is that Shiv Charan Mahato was residing with Sumitra Devi in a house separate from the other accused persons and in the night of 21.10.2009 a fire broke out in the house when Sumitra Devi was sleeping and she suffered burn injuries in the incident.

4. During the trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses the informant is PW-6.

5. PW-1 is the mother of Sumitra Devi and PW-2 is her brother.

6. To prove the charge of dowry death against the appellants the prosecution has laid evidence on: (i) harassment and torture of Sumitra Devi (ii) motive and (iii) medical evidence.

7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, an interference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of the accused and the circumstances from which an interference of guilt of an accused are drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when a case depends upon the conclusions drawn from the circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

8. The essential ingredients for constituting the offence under section 304-B IPC are: (i) death has occurred within seven years of marriage, (ii) the death was caused by any burn or any bodily injury or in the circumstances otherwise than normal and (iii) soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection to demand of dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband. On harassment and torture of Sumitra Devi at the hands of the appellants the prosecution has led evidence through PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6. These witnesses have deposed in the Court that after the marriage Sumitra Devi was received well in her matrimonial home for about one month but thereafter the appellants started demanding more money and due to non-fulfillment of dowry they would assault her. PW-1 has stated that her daughter used to tell her about the demand of dowry and harassment and torture at the hands of the accused persons over telephone, however, in her cross-examination she has admitted that there is no telephone connection in her house. PW-2 has stated that his sister whenever visited his house informed him about demand of motorcycle by her husband, but, in his cross-examination he has failed to state when his sister had visited him. PW-6 has also made allegations of demand of motorcycle and money, however, he has deposed in the Court that