The conviction for dowry death under Section 304(B) upheld for the husband based on stronger evidence, while the in-laws were acquitted due to insufficient evidence against them.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Bishambhar Shastri and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Addl. P.Ps. appearing for the State.

2. Both these criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08/09.03.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VI, Hazaribagh in S.T. No.380 of 2003 arising out of Keredari P.S. Case No.24 of 2003 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.1305 of 2003) whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. of eight years for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) each and R.I. of one year for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Raju Mahto, brother of deceased Fulko Devi lodged the F.I.R. before Keredari Police Station on 31.05.2003 stating inter alia that his sister Fulko Devi was married with Charku Mahto in the year 2001 in accordance with Hindu rights and customs. It is further alleged that just after the solemnization of marriage, there was additional demand of dowry in the shape of T.V. and motorcycle by her husband and in-laws which could not be fulfilled. Hence, Fulko Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment in her matrimonial home by the accused persons. It is further alleged that on 23.05.2003, informant’s sister came to her paternal home and thereafter, went to her sasural. Today, i.e., on 31.05.2003, informant came to know that his sister has been died in her sasural by drowning into a well. Informant has claimed that his sister has been murdered by the accused persons by forcibly throwing into well due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand.On the basis of above information, an F.I.R. was instituted as Keredari P.S. Case No.24 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 4 98(A) and 304(B) of the I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the above named appellants to face the trial. After commitment of case to the Court of Sessions, charges under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 98(A) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. were framed which were not accepted and claimed to be tried.

5. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that appellants Chaita Mahto and Aghni Devi (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.489 of 2007) are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased who have no concern with the family affairs between deceased and her husband. There is no specific allegation against these appellants as to when they have asked additional dowry in the shape of motorcycle and T.V. and in what manner they had been subjecting the deceased to cruelty. No specific day and date of any event has been alleged against them. These appellants are poor labourers and old persons now about more than 80 years’ of age, having no use of motorcycle or the T.V. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the charges levelled against them beyond all reasonable doubt