Hon’ble Krishna Singh, J.—The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellant Raj Kumar @ Guddu s/o Sri Ram Chander, r/o Cotton Mills Colony, P.S Jaitpura, District Varanasi challenging the impugned order i.e. second paragraph of the operative portion of the order passed in the judgment dated 3.10.1991 by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 1990 (State v. Raj Kumar @ Guddu and others) arising out of case crime No. 222 of 1986, under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi by which the complainant/informant Punwasi is entitled to get back the material exhibits namely ornaments etc. which were recovered from the dead body of the deceased-Smt. Kusum Devi.

2. The origin of facts emanating from the prosecution in a short conspectus is that on 7.12.1986, at about 8:05 a.m., complainant Punwasi lodged a written report Ext. Ka 1 at Jaitpura Police Station with the allegations that his daughter Smt. Kusum Devi aged about 20 years was married nearly two years ago with Raj Kumar alias Guddu. After six months of the marriage, Raj Kumar began to torture Smt. Kusum Devi. He used to remark that her father had given nothing in marriage and the goods given in marriage were useless. Smt. Kusum Devi informed the complainant and her mother. Complainant then had a talk with Raj Kumar and his father. They demanded some more money and promised nothing would be done later on. Nearly three months ago Raj Kumar began to pressurZe Smt. Kusum Devi to demand a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her father. Smt. Kusum Devi told that her father was unable to give this amount. Raj Kumar then assaulted Smt. Kusum Devi. The mother-in-law of Kusum Devi began to torture her. She was also assaulting her. Raj Kumar used to give threat to kill her. Raj Kumar used to send Kusum Devi to the complainant’s house to demand money. On 5.12.1986, Kusum Devi had gone to the house of the complainant and told that in case a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was not paid, she would not be saved. The complainant allowed Kusum Devi to go back to the house of Raj Kumar on 6.12.1986. On 7.12.1986 at about 6 a.m., he came to know through a resident of the same mohalla that in-laws of Kusum Devi murdered her by pressing her throat/neck.

3. On the written report Ext. Ka 1, police registered a case against the appellant and other co-accused for committing the offences under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After registration of the case, the Investigating Officer swung into action and recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses. The post-mortem of the deceased was performed by doctor on 7.12.1986 at about 5:15 p.m. After completing the necessary formalities, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and other two co-accused under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The case was committed by the concerned Magistrate, to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial Court after hearing the prosecution as well as defence and perusing the material available on record, framed charges against the appellant and other two co-accused namely Ram Chander and Smt. Radha Devi under Section 304 B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge framed were read over and explained to the appellant and other co-accused, they abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried, hence, the prosecution was called upon to lead the evidence.

5. In order to prove guilt of the appellant and other co-accused, prosecution had examined complainant Punwasi (PW-1), Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW-2), S.I. Ram Lal (PW-3), Constable Ram Giri (PW-4), and Dr. C.B. Tripathi (PW-5).

6. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant and other two co-accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and in their statement, they pleaded not guilty and denied their particip