The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in cases of dowry death, and circumstantial evidence must be conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16 in Session Trial No.403 of 2009 (State Vs. Rakesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.04 of 2009, under Section 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Kanpur Nagar, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are that first information report was lodged by informant Ram Chandra at Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Kanpur Nagar on 10.01.2009 with the averments that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Rakesh on 15.05.2006, in which informant had given dowry as per his financial condition. The husband, his mother Chhidana and father Shivram along with his three sisters were not satisfied with the dowry. After some days of the marriage, they used to torture his daughter for want of motorcycle and gold chain as additional dowry. His daughter had complained several times to the informant but he could not meet out the aforesaid demand. On 10.01.2009 at about 9:00 am husband and in-laws of his daughter killed her. He got the information at 01:30 pm on telephone and reached to the matrimonial home of his daughter.

3. On the basis of aforesaid report, a Case Crime No.04 of 2009 was registered at police station.

4. Investigation was taken up by I.O., who visited the spot and recovered Dupatta from the spot, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem after completing the inquest proceedings. Inquest report was prepared. The post mortem of the dead body was conducted by concerned doctor and post mortem report was prepared. I.O. recorded statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Site plan was also prepared. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted by the I.O. against accused Rakesh, Shivram and Smt. Chhidana u/s 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Magistrate took the cognizance and committed it to the Court of Sessions because the case was triable exclusively by Court of Sessions.

5. Learned trial court framed charges against all the accused persons u/s 498A, 304B IPC, alternatively u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges, framed against the accused, examined the following witnesses:

7. Following documentary evidence was filed by prosecution, which was proved by leading evidence:

8. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they stated that false evidence has led against them and the deceased had committed suicide for not having the child. No defense witness is examined by the accused persons.

9. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties, convicted the accused persons Rakesh, Shiv Ram and Chhidana for the offence u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced them for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- each.

10. It is pertinent to mention that when we have heard this appeal, the accused appellants Shivram and Smt. Chhidana had passed away. So now, we are concerned with the appeal of appellant Rakesh only, who is the husband of the deceased.

11. Heard Shri Ganesh Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri N.K. Srivastava, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this is no evidence case. No prosecution witness has supported the case of prosecution. It is submit