The court upheld the conviction of the husband for dowry death while acquitting the father-in-law and brother-in-law due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the need for clear proof in dowry cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both these appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants-Mansukh @ Raj Bhadur, Shiv Ram and Kishan Pal challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 6.6.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2011 (State Vs. Mansukh @ Raj Bahadur and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2010, Police Station–Sultanpur Ghosh, District-Fatehpur, whereby accused appellant Mansukh @ Raj Bahadur has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC; one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 498A IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months additional imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of fine to undergo six months additional imprisonment; whereas accused appellants Shiv Ram and Kishan Pal have been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 498A IPC and in default of fine to undergo three months additional imprisonment each; and seven years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- each under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and in default of fine to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment each. All sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case is based upon Written Report, dated 15.10.2010 (Ex.ka1) made by Chhote Lal S/o Mangal (PW-1), scribed by Amit Kumar (not produced), stating that he is resident of Village-Godhaiyapar Patti Shah, District-Fatehpur and had married his daughter Belpati with accused five-six years earlier. He had also given dowry as per his ability, but the father-in-law and other family members were demanding gold-chain, a ring and a buffalo. Since dowry demand could not be met by the informant, as such, on 15.10.2010 at 10:00 a.m. the informant's daughter was assaulted by an axe as a result of which, she died. Age of the deceased was stated to be 22 years. On receiving such information, the report has been made on the basis of which, first information report came to be registered as Case Crime No. 139 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The inquest was conducted on 15.10.2010 at 3:00 p.m. on the basis of information furnished by the PW-1. PW-1 is also a witness of inquest report. The dead-body was found on a cot in the courtyard and signs of injury were found on the head of the deceased. The inquest witnesses opined that postmortem be conducted to ascertain the cause of death. The deceased was found to be wearing various jewellery, which have been noticed in the inquest report. The postmortem was conducted on the next day, i.e., 16.10.2010 at 2:30 p.m., wherein following three injuries have been found on the deceased:

“(i) Incised wound 6 x 2 cm over middle part of head underline bone fracture into X brain deep as over 9 cm from right ear.

(ii) Incised wound 9 x 2 cm over middle par of head above 2 cm from first injury into X brain deep underline bone fracture.

(iii) Abrasion 8 x 5 cm parting left arm.”

4. The cause of death is shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. The Investigating Officer also recovered a blood-stained axe, which was sent for forensic examination. The F.S.L. report (Ex.ka15) is also on record, according to which, blood has been found on the axe. The blood-stained earth and plain earth etc. were also sent for forensic examination upon which blood has been found. Various jewellery worn by the deceased were also examined and have been returned after forensic examination.

5. After the investigation was concluded, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused persons on 19.11.2010. Cognizance was taken in the matter and the case was committed to the court of session where charges were framed against accused Mansukh @ Raj Bahadur, Shiv Ram and Kishan Pal under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. The