The court reiterated that in criminal law, especially for dowry death under Section 304B, the prosecution must establish evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on surmises cannot sustain a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.1997 passed by Shri D.P. Singh, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Subasi Devi recorded on 02.05.1995 at Holy Family Hospital, Mandar in which it has been stated that the marriage of the daughter of the informant Gita Devi was solemnized three years back as per Hindu rites and customs with Ram Badan Chauhan (appellant). After marriage, the daughter of the informant stayed at her matrimonial house for five days after which the son of the informant Rabindra brought her back to the house of the informant. It has been stated that after six months Vidai was done and various articles were also given by the informant during Vidai. It has been alleged that after about a year, the son in law of the informant started putting pressure upon the daughter of the informant to bring VCR and a Gold chain from her parents and on non-fulfillment, she was subjected to assault. The informant had herself gone to the house of her son-in- law and tried to reason with him, but of no avail as her son-in-law continuously abused her. On 30.04.1995, the informant came to know that her daughter has suffered burn injuries at which she went to Holy Family Hospital, where she saw her daughter lying on the bed in a badly burnt condition. The daughter of the informant disclosed that her husband had sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and had set her ablaze. At the time of the incident, there was no other person present.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Khelari P.S. Case No. 29/1995 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1996. Charge was framed u/s 498A and 304B of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as four (4) witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 Satyendra Chauhan is the brother of the deceased who has stated that the fardbeyan of his mother was recorded on 02.05.1995 at Holy Family Hospital, Mandar and he and his mother had put their respective signature on the fardbeyan. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1. He has stated that the marriage of his sister Gita Kumari was solemnized in April, 1992 with the accused Ram Badan Chauhan. He used to frequently meet his sister who used to complain of her illness. On 28.04.1995, his wife had disclosed that his sister has suffered burn injuries and is admitted at Dakra Hospital. When he went to Dakra Hospital, he came to know that his sister has been shifted to Mandar. He went to Mandar and found his sister fully burnt. He has stated that his sister had disclosed to his mother that the accused on 24.04.1995 had poured kerosene oil upon her and had set her ablaze. The police had recorded his statement and he had not stated that his sister had disclosed to him about the demand of a VCR, a Gold chain and cash made by her husband and in-laws. This witness was thereafter declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 2 Subasi D