JUDGMENT :

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

1. Baliapur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2006 was lodged on 31.07.2006 under section 304-B read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In his written report dated 31.07.2006, Jaleshwar Manjhi made specific allegation of harassment and torture of his daughter at the hands of her husband. A First Information Report was lodged against Jitendra Hembram @ Jitendra Manjhi, Fulmani Devi @ Fulmani Hembram and Basudeo Hembram @ Basu Manjhi. In course of investigation not many people came forward to state about the occurrence and during the trial only three persons, namely, Sakro Manjhian who is the mother, Baneshwar Manjhi who is the uncle and Jaleshwar Manjhi who is the father of Putul Manjhian were examined. Dr. Swapan Kumar Saraf who conducted the postmortem examination on 31.07.2006 did not find any antemortem external injury on the dead-body of Putul Manjhian. However, frothy blood was seen oozing from the lungs which was found congested and about 10 cc brownish fluid with odor of medicine was found in her stomach. The doctor did not render a conclusive opinion on the cause of death and viscera of Putul Manjhian was sent for chemical examination. A charge-sheet was filed against the above-named accused and they faced the trial on the charge of committing dowry death of Putul Manjhian in furtherance of criminal conspiracy.

2. In Sessions Trial No. 540 of 2006 with Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2007, Basudeo Hembram, Jitendra Hembram and Fulmani Devi were convicted and sentenced to RI for life under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, RI for five years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and RI for six months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. In paragraph No. 14 of the judgment under challenge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I Dhanbad has held that the following incriminating circumstances were sufficient to hold the accused guilty:

“14. I have given my anxious consideration on the evidence of the witnesses in the light of erudite and well-reasoned argument of the learned counsel of the accused and the, learned A.P.P. The following poignant circumstances have been traced out in order to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses. They are as follows:-

(i) Firstly, the deceased Putul Manjhi was married with accused Jitendra Hembram four years back to the occurrence and after marriage he was harassing the deceased for dowry.

(ii) Secondly, all the accused persons were demanding money from Putul Manjhiain and for non-fulfillment of demand they were keeping her without food.

(iii) Thirdly, the accused persons were also demanding money from informant Jaleshwar Manjhi and he oftenly used to meet their demand in order that the accused persons may keep his daughter properly.

(iv) Fourthly, on one Thursday i.e. two days prior to the occurrence accused Jitendra Hembram went to the house of the informant and demanded Rs. 5,000/- when informant promised to meet his demand as and when he gets salary to which the accused went annoyed and did not take food in the night and returned in the morning along with his daughter.

(v) Fifthly, on Sunday i.e. after two days the informant received massage on mobile phone that his daughter Putul Manjhiain has died.

(vi) Sixthly, the informant along with his wife, brother and some villagers immediately rushed to village Mallikdih and found the dead-body of Putul Manjhi kept in verandah of her house.

(vii) Seventhly, on 31.7.2006 informant lodged a written report in the Baliapur P.S. immediately after seeing the dead-body of his daughter.

(viii) Eighthly, a U.D. case was registered by the I.O. on 30.7.2006 on the basis of fardbeyan of accused Fulmani Devi, wherein, she stated the cause of death of the deceased snake bite.

(ix) Ninthly, doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the dead-body did not find any ante-mortem external wounds and also did not find