IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove all elements of dowry death beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2017 and order of sentence dated 11.12.2017 passed by the Judicial Commissioner- XVII-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 355 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the accused Munna Yadav, Govind Yadav and Pankaj Yadav were convicted for the offence under Section 304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants have to further undergo S.I. for six months each under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Further the accused persons were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years each with fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants have to further undergo S.I. for 06 months each under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to the Cr. Appeals are that the written information was given on behalf of the informant Manoj Kumar with the Police Station Sadar Doranda, District- Ranchi with these allegations that his sister Guddi Kumari was married with Munna Yadav at village Tilath, P.S. Piro, District-Bhojpur on 18.05.2013 according to Hindu rites and rituals. On 07.03.2019 Munna Yadav after Gauna took his sister to Imli Khatal Hinoo where for two or three months they resided. The whole family of Munna Yadav including Munna Yadav himself, Pankaj Yadav, Govind Yadav, Vikash Yadav, Raju Yadav, Sheela Devi all began to torture his sister for demand of golden chain and motorcycle in additional dowry. For non-fulfilment of the same, his sister was physically and mentally tortured, complaint of the same was made by his sister to him over the phone. On 21.10.2014 at 7 O’clock Munna Yadav informed over the phone to him that his sister was ill. Having received this information, he told to Munna Yadav that he was coming in the morning. On 22.10.2014 at 4 O’ clock he reached Ranchi to the house of Munna Yadav and asked about the whereabouts of his sister. Munna Yadav told him that his sister on account of the pain in her stomach died. He asked him to go away from his house and also began to assault him. It was told by him that his sister had been cremated. Accordingly, this F.I.R. was lodged which was registered on case crime No. 635 of 2014 under Sections 304B/201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against accused Munna Yadav, Pankaj Yadav, Govind Yadav, Vikash Yadav, Raju Yadav and Sheela Devi.

3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused Munna Yadav, Govind Yadav, Pankaj Yadav for the offence under Sections 304B/201 read with 34 of I.P.C.

4. The cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet by the learned Magistrate and committed the case for trial to the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi who further transferred the same to the Judicial Commissioner, XVII, Ranchi.

5. The trial court framed the charge against the accused Munna Yadav, Govind Yadav and Pankaj Yadav for the offence under Sections 304B/201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and alternate charge was also framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. All the charge framed was read over and explained to all the accused persons who denied the charge and claimed for trial.

6. On behalf of prosecution to prove the charge against the accused persons in oral evidence examined P.W.1 Virendra Rai, P.W.2 Manu Kumar, P.W.3 Bimla Devi, P.W.4 Manoj Kumar, P.W.5 Chandra Bhushan Singh.

7. In documentary evidence adduced Ext.1 signature of Manoj Kumar on written report, Ext.2 Endorsement on written report, Ext.3 Formal F.I.R., Ext.4 confessional statement of Munna Yadav, Ext.5 is the Notice dated 17.04.2015.

8. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded who denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence ag