The main legal point established in the judgment is the expansive interpretation of the term 'dowry' and the application of the presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act in cases of dowry demand and related deaths.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2015 and order of sentence dated 8.10.2015, passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Case No. 135 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three months. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under section 498A IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

3. A written report was submitted by Jagannath Modi, addressed to the officer in charge, Kasmar P.S., Bokaro, in which it has been stated that the marriage of his daughter Uttara Devi was solemnized with Raju Munda (appellant) about five years back. It has been alleged that after one year of marriage, the husband and the in-laws of his daughter had started demanding cash and other materials but since the informant was a poor labourer, he could not meet the said demands. Due to non fulfilment of the demands, the accused used to torture her and ultimately on 8.10.2009, the accused persons had sprinkled kerosene oil upon the daughter of the informant and had set her ablaze leading to her death.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kasmar P.S. Case No. 49 of 2009 was instituted for the offence punishable under section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against five accused persons. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under section 304 B/34 of IPC and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 135 of 2010. Charge was framed under sections 498A and 304B IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case.

P.W-1-Nagendra Modi has deposed that Uttara Devi was married to Raju Munda about five years back. After one year of marriage, her husband and inlaws had started demanding dowry and had also subjected her to torture. Since the demands could not be fulfilled, she was burnt to death.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had disclosed to the police about the demand of dowry and the daughter of the informant being burnt to death by her husband and inlaws for non fulfillment of the said demand. He has stated that when he had gone to meet the deceased, she was fine. The information regarding demand of dowry was given to him by the father of the deceased namely Jagannath Mahto. He has stated that the entire testimony is based upon hearsay noise.

P.W-2-Dukhni Devi is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that after one year of the marriage of her daughter, a demand of dowry was made, which was fulfilled by them. Subsequently there was demand of Rs.10,000/-and threat of dire consequences were given if the demand was not fulfilled. Thereafter her daughter was murdered by five persons. When she had gone to the matrimonial house of her daughter, she had found the accused persons having burnt her daughter by pouring kerosene oil upon her.

In cross-examination, she has stated that her daughter used to regularly visit her parent’s house. She had received information that her daughter has been admitted to the hospital by the brother in law of Raju Munda and when she went to the hospital and then to the police station, she had come to know that her daughter is dead. She had told the police that due to non fulfilment of the demand of Rs.10,000/-made by Raju Munda, her daughter was burnt to death. She had also disclosed to the poli