To sustain a conviction under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must establish a proximate link between dowry-related cruelty and the victim's death within seven years of marriage, demonstrating that such death occurred under abnormal circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Since both the appeal arises out of the common judgment of conviction dated 28.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 02.02.1998, as such, they have been tagged together and taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

Prayer:

2. Both the criminal appeals have been preferred under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 28.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 02.02.1998, passed by the learned 4^th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 289 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the learned court below has convicted the appellants under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant of Criminal Appeal (DB) No.22 of 1998(R) namely Dinesh Prasad to undergo RI for life and the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No.23 of 1998(R) namely Lakshman Prasad and Smt. Janki Devi were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years each.

Prosecution Case:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the written report dated 28.09.1995, of the informant Jeewachh Sahu (P.W.-1) is that daughter of the informant, Renu Sahu was married with the appellant Dinesh Prasad in the month of July, 1991. His daughter was tortured by her husband Dinesh Sahu and her in-laws and hence, a case being Sadar PS Case No. 47 of 1993 was lodged by her daughter. Informant further stated that three months ago the said case was compromised on the saying of Dinesh and his family members. On 28.09.1995, at about 04:00 PM, the informant got information from his son-in-law (appellant Dinesh Prasad herein) that his daughter had bolted the door of the room from inside and is not giving any reply. Then, informant reached with his wife, at the matrimonial home of his daughter and found that the door of the room was locked from inside. Then informant pushed the door and when dooropenedthey found his daughter Renu was hanging dead with sari around her neck.

4. On the basis of written report of the informant Sadar P.S. Case no. 137 of 1995 dated 28.09.1995 was registered against the appellants under section 306/34 of IPC. On completion of investigation, charge- sheet no. 47 dated 22.12.1995, was submitted under section 306/34 IPC against the appellants. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions.

5. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 306/34 and in alternative under section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Trial commenced and at the conclusion of the trial appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined altogether four witnesses.PW-1 Jeewachh Sahu is the father of the deceased and informant of the case; PW-2 Kamini Devi, is the mother of the deceased; PW-3 is Dr. Ram Swaroop Sahu who had conducted post- mortem on the dead body of the deceased and PW-4 is the Sub-Inspector of police and investigating officer of the case.

8. Defence had examined one witness namely Basant Kishore Narayan, who is a formal witness.

9. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused persons, found the said appellants guilty and accordingly, convicted in the manner as indicated hereinabove.

10. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the present appeals have been