IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is the application of Section 304B of IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act in cases of dowry death, emphasizing the need for proximity between cruelty/harassment and the death.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal, under Sections 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 02.03.2017 and order of sentence dated 04.03.2017 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge at Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 310 of 2011 arising out of Baharagora (Barsole) P.S. Case No. 06 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 43 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Section 304B/34 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. each and fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have further been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months each.

2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the FIR, reads as under:

On 28.01.2011, an FIR had been instituted under Section 304B/34 of I.P.C. on the basis of the statement given by Pratap Chandra Sahu, P.W.-2, who has stated that his daughter Sushma (deceased) was married with Sahdeo Sao in Feb, 2009. For about six months of her marriage she was kept well in her matrimonial home then after her husband and father-in-law started demanding Rs.50,000/- cash and one colour T.V. Whenever, he used to go to her in laws house, his daughter informed her about the ill treatment she was suffering from the hands of the family members of the in-laws. The neighbourers of her in laws have also informed him that she is subjected to physical harassment by the accused persons. For some days his son-in-law was living in the house of Veena (his elder sister) house at Baridih Jamshedpur. She used to instigate Sahdeo Sao for demanding money and television which was informed by his daughter to him and other family members. After some time, his son-in-law was living separately in Jamshedpur and whenever he used to go to office he used to lock Sushma in a room. Whenever they used to go there they talk with the deceased through a window. He further alleged that on 27.01.2011 the accused persons after assaulting his daughter have forcibly administered poison to his daughter and strangulated her resulting in her death.

On the basis of the fard beyan, FIR was instituted and accordingly investigation proceeded and thereafter charge sheet had been submitted. Cognizance had been taken and the charges were framed and for the content of the charges the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial proceeded and the learned trial court after considering the materials available on record the testimonies of the witnesses, convicted the present appellants under Section 304B/34 of IPC.

3. Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no incriminating material against the appellants since there is no eye witness to the occurrence witnessing the commission of crime by the appellants. The ground has been taken that if the testimony of the witnesses will be taken into consideration, it would be evident that none of the witnesses has deposed against the appellant that they are behind the commission of crime rather it would be evident from the testimony of the witnesses that the victim while was in the house has been found dead and when she was taken to the hospital, then the doctor has found her dead.

Learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a case where the judgment of conviction ought to have been passed due to the reason that there is no conclusive evidence against the appellants.

4. While on the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned APP appearing for the respondent has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the appellants to take the ground that there is no incriminating evidence against them rather the appellant no.1 being the husband is answerable regarding the cause of death in view of the provision of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act coupled with