IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of dowry death, the prosecution must prove the elements of the offence under Section 304(B) IPC, after which the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances surrounding the death, as per Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Both the appeal since arise out of the common judgment of conviction and sentence, as such, directed to be listed together for analogous hearing and hereby disposed off by the common order.

2. Both these appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2016 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 415 of 2011 in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No.15 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.938 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of IPC as also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, have been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

3. It needs to refer herein that the learned counsel for the appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1689 of 2017 has submitted that the appellant of the said appeal has completed the sentence inflicted upon him but even then, he wants to press this appeal on merit.

4. The appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1689 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the husband of the deceased, namely, Sanjay Sao, while the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1373 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of the mother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Gita Devi and father-in-law of the deceased, namely, Chathu Sao.

5. The appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1689 of 2017 has been argued by Mrs. Nalini Jha, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent-State. While the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1373 of 2016 has been argued by Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent-State.

6. The prosecution story in brief, which is required to be referred herein, reads as under:

The informant’s daughter Sangita Devi was married to Sanjay Sao resident of village Pahra P.S Keredari District- Hazaribag on 08.03.2011. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.60,000/- and other articles worth Rs.50,000/- was given to Sanjay Sao. In-Laws of Sangita Devi used to demand a motorcycle. Motorcycle could not be given as the financial position of the informant was not good. On 10.04.2011 informant’s son-in-law Sanjay Sao reached at Teliyadih and said that his daughter has fled away with a boy in the night. Informant tried to locate his daughter but could not trace her out. In the evening of 14.04.11 at about 5:00 PM villagers of village Pahra informed him that dead body of his daughter is lying in a well of Pahra. On receiving this information, he along with other villagers reached there. He found the dead body in front of house of Chathu Sao. It has been alleged that Sanjay Sao, Chathu Sao and Gita Devi have murdered his daughter.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants of both the appeals have taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment :

(i) It is a case where the judgment of conviction is not based upon any eye witnesses since no one has seen the commission of crime of murder of the deceased, namely, Sangita Devi.

(ii) The deceased had died by drowning herself in the well and when she was traceless then immediately on the same day, it has been informed at her parental house and hence, it is evident from the conduct of the appellants, particularly the husband, appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1689 of 2017 that he has got no complicity in the commission of crime or murder of the deceased who happens to be his wife.

(iii) The judgment impugned suffers from serious lacuna since there is no eye witness but mainly on the basis of applying the statutory command as under Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act, the judgment