JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

In the intervening night of 06/07.08.2011, Purnima Mandal was murdered and her dead body was set on fire in her matrimonial home. On the basis of a written report submitted by Lakhikant Mandal, Nala (Bindapathar) PS Case No. 82 of 2011 was registered against Susti Pada Mandal, Haradhan Mandal and Parul Mandal for causing dowry death of Purnima Mandal. In Sessions Case No. 24 of 2012, the learned District & Additional Session Judge-1st, Jamtara has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants to RI for life with a fine of Rs.2000/- each under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, with a default stipulation to undergo SI for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution is that in connection to demand of a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- the accused caused harassment and torture to Purnima Mandal and finally she was done to death in her matrimonial home and to conceal the crime her dead body was covered with a gunny bag in the backyard of the house. There is no eyewitness who has seen the appellants committing murder of Purnima Mandal and to prove the charges against the appellants the prosecution has laid circumstantial evidence and, therefore, we are required to see whether the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that all the incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution were incompatible with the innocence of the appellants and one and only inference which can be drawn from the proved circumstances is that the appellants have caused dowry death of Purnima Mandal in furtherance of their common intention.

3. In “Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan” (2011) 12 SCC 545 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :

“25. It is a settled legal position that in case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain of evidence which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed the offence and none else. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the accused had committed the offence and on the basis of the aforestated material, in our opinion, it would be dangerous to convict the accused.”

4. Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code provides that where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of her marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand of dowry, the accused has committed dowry death.

5. The offence under section 304-B has been inserted in the Indian Penal Code by way of Amendment Act 43 of 1986 and simultaneously a corresponding Amendment was made in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by which section 113-B was inserted to raise a presumption of dowry death. The language implied in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act reveal a common point of reference in both the provisions, that the woman must have been soon before her death subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand of dowry.

6. In “Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana” (2015) 3 SCC 724, a case on which the learned counsel for the appellants has heavily relied on, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code were introduced simultaneously and, therefore, it must be assumed that Parliament has intentionally used the word ‘deem’ in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code to distinguish this offence from others.

7. The prosecution has laid evidence through the parents and brother of Purnima Mandal to establish that there was demand of a motorcycle and Rs.10,000/- and in connection thereof the accused inflicted various acts of harassment and torture upon her. The testimonies of these witnesses not