JUDGMENT

Reserved on: 17.10.2024 Pronounced On: 25.10.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed under Section 304B of the IPC.

2. As per fardbeyan of father of deceased recorded on 04.12.2016 at 7.30 a.m., the deceased (Priya Gupta @ Rani) was married to Achyut Raj Siddhartha (Appellant) on 13.07.2016. At the time of marriage, father of deceased gave Rupees Ten Lakhs and a Maruti Celerio car and other articles as dowry. Deceased was subjected to torture on small issues by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and two maternal fathers-in-law. It is alleged that on 03.12.2016, the deceased informed him that her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and two maternal fathers-in-law would kill her. The informant made a call to his son-in- law and asked what had happened and why the deceased was in panic. His son-in-law gave the phone to her mother who started shouting, and told the informant to come to Daltonganj and then she will tell what had been done by the deceased. It is further stated that Achyut Raj Siddhartha made a phone call to the informant that the deceased had locked herself inside the room by bolting the door from inside and she was not opening the door. The informant reached the matrimonial home of the deceased and found that his daughter was hanging from the ceiling fan in the room. It is alleged that the murder of the deceased has been committed under conspiracy by accused persons for the purpose of demand of dowry and thereafter, the dead body was hanged by the ceiling fan to give it a look of suicide.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.305 of 2016 was registered under Sections 304B/34/120B of the IPC against the appellant. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the appellant was put on trial for the offence under Sections 304B/120B of the IPC and alternatively under Section 302/120B of the IPC.

4. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and two witnesses have been examined on behalf of defence and relevant documents including post-mortem examination report, inquest report, have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 – 5.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment by husband or the relative of the husband soon before her death in connection with dowry demand is the fundamental ingredient of the offence under Section 304B of the IPC. It is argued that neither there is any evidence of subjecting the deceased to cruelty, nor there is evidence that there was any dowry demand soon before the death of the deceased. Informant is the father of the deceased (P.W. 6), who deposed that he had telephonic conversation with the deceased on the evening when the incidence took place, but it has not been stated that there was any dowry demand or harassment to the deceased that evening. It is specifically stated that appellant no.2 had called the informant that evening following some dispute. Had there been any intention to kill the deceased, she would not have called him. The specific defence of the appellant taken in the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that the deceased did not want to live in her matrimonial home. She used to have telephonic conversation with her boyfriend in the absence of her husband- Achyut Raj Siddhartha. The call recording was in the laptop of the appellant seized by the police, but police did not investigate these facts which was the real cause of her suicidal death.

6. In the present case, the marriage was solemnized on 13.07.2016 and the incidence took place on 04.12.2016 within six months from the date of marriage and within the short period, there was no marital discord as deposed by D.W. 1- Keshri Kant Mishra, the priest who visited the matrimonial home of the deceased on 5 – 6 occasions. There is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cru