JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for State.

1. The above noted criminals have been preferred against the judgement and order of conviction dated 1.11.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act),Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 672 of 2014(State Vs. Manish Kumar Srivastava and another) convicting the appellants for offence under section 304-B I.P.C. and sentencing them to seven years rigorous imprisonment; for offence under section 498-A I.P.C. convicting and sentencing them to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment and convicting them for offence under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case is that informant, Keshav Kumar Srivastava, lodged an First Information Report alleging that he got his daughter, Neelam Srivastava, married to appellant, Manish Kumar Srivastava, on 6.6.2014;that on the next day her ‘bidai’ took place; that he spent Rs.8 lacs in the marriage; that on 9.6.2014 at 2 .00 hours his daughter informed him on phone that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law (Jithani) and elder brother-in-law (Jeth) are behaving very badly and demanding Rs. Two lakhs in dowry; that they have not given her food to eat and they are harassing her in different ways; that she has tried to convince them that her father is unable to pay any amount further; that the informant consoled his daughter and stated that I am coming to her matrimonial home and then she informed him that by the time you will reach here, she may not be alive; that then he contacted his son-in-law on phone who talked very rudely and made demand of Rs. 2 lacs; that the informant alongwith his younger brother went to Gorakhpur on motorcycle and found only the mother-in-law of his daughter in the house, who did not informed him anything about the whereabouts of his daughter; that he inquired from the people in the neighbourhood, who informed that accused persons have killed his daughter and have taken her to the hospital just for formality and that the informant has apprehension that his daughter has been given poison and her jewelry worth of Rs. 4 lacs have been taken.

3. The aforesaid First Information Report was lodged on 10.6.2014 against the appellants,Manish Kumar Srivastava(husband), Govind Saran Srivastava (father-in-law), mother-in-law, elder brother-in-law (Jeth), Santosh Kumar Srivastava and sister-in-law (Jethani) at P.S. Khorabar, District Gorakhpur as case crime no. 314 of 2014 under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The investigating officer prepared site plan,recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing other formalities submitted charge sheet against the appellants, Manish Kumar Srivastava and Santosh Kumar Srivastava, under section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court framed charges under sections 498-A,304-B I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and alternative charge under section 302/34 I.P.C. The prosecution produced eight witnesses and also filed documentary evidences.

5. P.W.1, Keshav Kumar Srivastava (father of the deceased), P.W.2, Ashok Kumar Srivastava (uncle of the deceased) and P.W.3, Smt. Mithlesh Srivastava ( mother of the deceased) proved the version of the First Information Report before the trial court.

6. The trial court found that the alternative charge under section 302/34 I.P.C. is not made out against the appellants but the offence under section 304-B I.P.C. is made out because marriage of the deceased with appellant, Manish Kumar Srivastava and her unnatural death has taken place within about four days of her marriage, which is within seve