JUDGMENT

Per : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Present appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 31.12.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2000, by the court of Session Judge, Pithoragarh. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted under Section 498A and 304-B IPC and sentenced as hereunder :-

“(i) Under Section 498A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(ii) Under Section 304B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years."

2. Briefly Stated, according to the prosecution, the deceased Daya Pant (for short, “the deceased") and the appellant no. 1 Dinesh Chandra Pant were married on 21.06.1997. The appellant Savitri Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased. On 08.11.1997, the deceased was not found in her house. Upon a search, her dead body was recovered at a distance of 100 meters from the residence. A report of the incident was given by her brother-in-law Naresh Chandra Pant to the concerned Revenue Inspector, who conducted the inquest on 09.11.1997. From near the dead body, a bottle of nuwan (poison) was also recovered. On 10.11.1997, the post mortem of the deceased was conducted, but the cause of death could not be ascertained.

3. Thereafter, on 27.11.1997, the father of the deceased gave a report to the police, stating that, soon after marriage, the deceased was harassed for the demand of Rs. 1 Lakh in dowry. The deceased had visited her matrimonial house for Bhaiya Dooj, after marriage, and then she had narrated, the story of her harassment to her parents and other family members. Based on this report, chik FIR was lodged and a case was registered against the appellants and Naresh Chandra Pant. Since, in the post mortem of the deceased, the cause of death could not be ascertained, the viscera was sent for forensic examination. In the viscera, organo-chloro-insecticides poison was detected. The Investigating Officer (for short, “IO") prepared the site plan and after conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellants and Naresh Chandra Pant for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC. On 19.01.2001, charge under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC were framed against the appellants and Naresh Chandra Pant.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined, as many as, six witnesses, namely, PW1 Suresh Chandra Pant, father of the deceased, PW2 Smt. Laxmi Devi, mother of the deceased, PW3 Mahesh Chandra Pant, brother of the deceased, PW4 Dr. Dhirendra Singh Bankoti, PW5 Anand Ram and PW6 Prem Vallabh.

5. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to them, they have been falsely implicated in the case.

6. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, Naresh Chandra, has been acquitted of the charge, but the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. The appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. Aggrieved by it, the appellants are in appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence is bad in the eyes of law. He would submit the following points in his submission:-

(i) The deceased was good in studies. She was not happy with the marriage.

(ii) The deceased died on 08.11.1997, immediately, thereafter information was sent to the father of the deceased and even inquest was conducted a day thereafter and post mortem on 10.11.1997, but the parents or brother of the deceased did not come to see the deceased at the last time.

(iii) In the FIR, there have been no specific averments as to how the deceased was harassed or tortured.

(iv) The FIR is delayed. Had it been a case of demand of dowry, the FIR would