To secure conviction under Section 304(B) and 498(A) IPC, specific overt acts of cruelty must be established against the accused; mere familial relations are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned Addl. P.P.appearing for the State.

2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2006 and 01.07.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.237 of 2000 (44 of 2005) arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2000 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.57 of 2000) whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant’s daughter Nazma Khatoon (since deceased) was married with one Jahangir Ansari according to muslim rights and customs. It is alleged that since from the very inception of the marriage, the husband and in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry presented at the time of marriage. It is alleged that just after two months of the marriage additional demand of Rs. 40,000/- cash was raised by husband and father-in-law of the deceased which could not be fulfilled due to poverty of the informant. It is further alleged that due to non-fulfillment of above demand, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture at the hands of her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellant) Salma Khatoon. It is further alleged that just before 20 days of the occurrence, daughter of informant all of a sudden returned to her parental home and narrated about the ill-treatment and torture meted with her due to non-fulfillment of aforesaid demand by her father. Anyhow, she managed to flee away from the matrimonial home. It is alleged that thereafter, husband and father-in-law of the deceased arrived at parental home of the deceased and requested her father to send back the deceased to her matrimonial home on assurance that they will keep her properly and will not repeat the aforesaid demand in future. Upon above assurance, the deceased was again sent to her matrimonial home but just after one day of the occurrence, the informant came to know from his nephew that the deceased has complained about further ill-treatment and torture and apprehending her death at the instance of accused persons. Then informant was thinking to go to the matrimonial home of his daughter but he came to know from one Chirauddin Mian that his daughter has been killed in her matrimonial home. The informant along with others went there and saw the dead body of his daughter and ligature mark on the neck. The informant also inquired with the local villagers and came to know that Jahangir Ansari (husband), Sayeed Ansari (father- in-law) and present appellant (mother-in-law) have committed murder of the deceased by giving knot of rope and tightening the neck. It is further alleged that such attempt was also made by the husband prior to one year of this occurrence with one Iqbal Ansari.On the basis of written report of the informant (father of the deceased), F.I.R. was instituted as Narayanpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2000 for the offence under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

4. After completion of inve