The prosecution must establish the essential elements of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, including the demand of dowry, torture, and cruelty by the accused, to secure a conviction.

ORDER :

1. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2004 and 20.12.2004 respectively passed by the court of Additional Distt. & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned court below has convicted both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and both of them were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of the written report of the informant P.W. 1 Indramani Sao on 25.01.2003 addressed to the Officer-In-Charge of Nimiaghat, Police Station in the district of Giridih. Briefly stating the prosecution case as unfolded in the said written report is as under :

The informant stated that his daughter/deceased was married two years back with the Arjun Sao, appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 117 of 2005, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. It has further been alleged that after the marriage, the appellant Arjun Sao, his mother Sanichari Devi and sister Sitwa Devi started demanding a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the deceased Sonia Devi and for this they used to cause torture to her. It has further been alleged that they used to threaten her that if the demand is not fulfilled then they would kill her and her dead body would be thrown to the railway line. It has further been stated by the informant that on 25.01.2003 at about 7 A.M. the informant got a telephonic message from his elder son-in-law Nandlal Sao (not examined although cited as a witness by the prosecution) and having received such information he went to another village Rangamati, P.S. Nimiaghat, District Giridih where he found the dead body of his daughter Sonia Devi was lying near the railway line and the house of the accused appellants was locked. It has further been stated that the accused persons were absconding.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report dated 25.01.2003, a formal F.I.R. was instituted by Nimiaghat Police Station vide P.S. Case No. 07 of 2003, vide dated 25.01.2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the investigation of the case commenced. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of the charge sheet, the charge was framed against three accused persons including these two appellants Arjun Sao, Sanichari Devi and one Sitwa Devi for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after conducting the trial one of the accused Sitwa Devi was acquitted and rest two accused persons Arjun Sao, Sanichari Devi (both the appellants) were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and both of them have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge.

4. Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. P.K. Appu and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants

5. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned trial court failed to analyze the evidences brought on record by the prosecution. As the prosecution has failed to establish the time, death and genuineness of the First Information Report and the involvement of the appellants are not proved beyond reasonable doubts. It has been pointed out that the learned court below failed to appreciate that P.W. 2 doctor, had deposed that the cause of death was injury caused by hard, heavy and blunt substance