IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of reliable evidence for conviction in dowry death cases, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements under IPC Sections 304B and 306.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

1. Both the aforesaid Criminal appeals, arising out of a common case/ Sessions Trial, as such, both are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both the aforesaid Criminal appeals are directed against the common Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 15.02.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in S.T. Case No.139 of 2011 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B/ 34 IPC.

3. As per the FIR, lodged by Munni Devi (mother of the deceased) that on 04.12.2010 her daughter, Mamta Devi was married to one Anil Kumar (appellant/accused) on 20.05.2005 and at the time of marriage, dowry in cash and kinds were given. Despite this, it is alleged that she was being harassed in reference to the dowry demand. A female child was born from the said wedlock and because of it, the harassment was increased and dowry demand was made. The husband of the informant, during his life time, used to pay periodically to his daughter so that she can have peaceful marital life. After his death, husband (Anil Kumar) and his family members further started exerting pressure for the dowry demand. Consequently, it is alleged that Rs.30,000/-was paid and subsequently Rs.1,70,000/-was paid to the appellant /accused (Anil Kumar). It is alleged that on 28.11.2010, she came at her natal home and returned on 30.11.2010. At that time also demand of Rs.2 Lakhs was made. On 04.12.2010, she received information that her daughter had died in her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances. On such information, she along with her sons went there where she found the dead body of her daughter in hanging condition in the room. It is also alleged that she had been killed by her husband and other in-laws for non-fulfilment of Rs.2 Lakhs and it was hatched to cover up the crime.

4. On the basis of the written report, the Police instituted First Information Report being 255 of 2010 (dated 04.12.2010) corresponding to G.R. No.1617 of 2010 under Sections 304B/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused, (1) Anil Kumar (husband), (2) Jagarnnath Mahto( father in law), (3). Bharat Sharma, (4) Sunil Kumar, (5) Satrughan Kumar, [3 to 5 being elder brotherinlaw], (6) Kiran Devi (7) Manju Devi, (8) Sunita Devi (6 to 8 being the elder sister in law/ Gotani), (9) Raja (s/o Bharat Kumar) and (10) Lalo Devi (Nanad).

5. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellants, Anil Kumar (husband) and Sunil Kumar (elder brother in law/ Bhaisur) under Sections 306/ 34 IPC. Both these appellants/ accused were put on trial for the offence under Sections 306/ 34 IPC and alternative charge under Section 304 B/34 IPC was also framed.

6. Altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents were adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits.

7. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellants has been recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The defence of the appellants/ accused is of innocence and false implication.

8. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that the part of the prosecution case has been falsified during investigation and the charge-sheet was submitted against only two of these appellants, whereas, allegation was levelled against the husband and entire family members ten in number had been implicated in the FIR. Furthermore, the Police on investigation did not find the case to be true under Section 304B IPC and submitted charge-sheet for abatement of commission of suicide.

9. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel for the appellants that out of the eight witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, six of them are material witnesses. P.W.7 is the Doctor who conducted the autopsy, whereas P.W.8 is the investigating officer. Out of six mater