The prosecution must prove unnatural death for conviction under Section 304-B; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Ambuj Nath, J.

Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.06.2004 passed by Shri Ramendra Nath Rai, 4th Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2003 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 44 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 479 of 2002, holding the appellants Ram Kailash Mandal and Sumitra Devi (Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 1191 of 2004) and Suresh Mandal @ Suresh Kumar Mandal (Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1336 of 2004) guilty for the offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing them to undergo R.I for seven years.

2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the Informant Radhyshyam Mandal, alleging therein that his daughter Lalita Devi was married to the appellant Suresh Mandal in 1997. After marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home. Subsequently, appellants started demanding ten thousand rupees and a motorcycle. To enforce the demand, she was tortured. On 29.05.2002 at about 1.00 p.m., he was informed that his daughter Lalita Devi had died. On receiving this information, he went to her matrimonial home and found his daughter lying in the verandah on the cot. There was some reddish mark on her back, lips and cheek. Accordingly, this case was instituted under sections 304-B and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Charge was framed against the appellants for the offences under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Content of the charge was read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidences. On the basis of the evidences available on the record, learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offence under sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly.

5. Now, it has to be seen, whether prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts.

6. Radhey Shyam Madnal who is the Informant of this case, has been examined as P.W-1. He has supported the allegation as made out in the fardbeyan. He has stated that his daughter Lalita Devi was married to the appellant Suresh Mandal in the year 1997 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, his son-in-law Suresh Mandal and Samdhi Ram Kailash Mandal started demanding ten thousand rupees and a motorcycle. Informant had expressed his inability to fulfil the demand. Being agitated, both son-in-law of the Informant and his Samdhi did not get the Vidai of the daughter of the Informant. She was left in the house of the Informant for three years. However, in the year 1999, he went to the house of the appellants with some of his well-wishers and pleaded with both these appellants to perform Vidai of his daughter, after which, Vidai of his daughter was performed. His daughter used to tell him that unless their demands of ten thousand rupees and a motorcycle is fulfilled, she will continue to be tortured at the hands of the appellants. At para-4 of his deposition, he has stated that on 29.05.2002 he came to know that his daughter had died, on which, he went to the matrimonial home of his daughter with Ishwar Chandra Mandal, Jaggarnath Biswas and Moti Mandal and found her dead body lying in verandah on the cot. There was mark of injury on her back, cheek and lips. Villagers told him that to enforce the demand of motorcycle, there was quarrel between the appellants and the deceased. Thereafter, deceased was murdered. He has proved the fardbeyan and identified his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.-1.

He has been cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after Vidai ceremony of his daughter was performed, he had gone to her matrimonial home where again demand of dowry was reiterated. He has further stated that in June 2000 also, demand of dowry was reiterated by his