J U D G M E N T

th Dated, 12 December, 2024 By Court This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 06.09.2002 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No.59 of 2002 arising out of Panki Police Station Case No.29 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, appellant No.1 and 2 have been convicted for offences under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the appellant Nos.3, 4 and 5 have been convicted for offences under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code AND appellants have been awarded with sentence in the following manner: -

2. It has been apprised to this Court that appellant No.2 Basudeo Singh has expired during pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal qua appellant No.2 – Basudeo Singh, stands abated.

3. Now, this appeal is confined only with respect to appellant No.1 – Karam Singh, appellant No.3 – Deoraj Singh, appellant No.4 – Vishwanath Singh and appellant No.5 – Rajendra Singh.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no material to convict these appellants. He submits that none of the witnesses have stated anything specific against the appellant No.1 that he has committed murder. Even the cause of death has not been ascertained as the body was cremated before postmortem. He submits that the uncle of the deceased was present at the time of cremation, but he did not make any objection, which suggests the falsity of this case. Learned counsel further submitted that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report and even there is no material to suggest that soon before the death dowry was demanded. So far as the other appellants are concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no material to suggest that they had participated in disposal of the dead body to attract Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer of the appellants and submits that the appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the presumption is against the appellant and the appellant could not discharge the onus in terms of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, as the prosecution has fully established the three basic ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Further, learned State counsel submits that the evidence of the mother and uncle of the deceased suggests that there was demand for dowry and soon before the death, dowry was demanded. So far as the other appellants are concerned, it has been submitted that they are the distant family members of the deceased and since the dead body was burnt, they have been made accused in this case.

6. A complaint case being Complaint Case No.405 of 2000 was filed by Sato Devi (mother of the deceased Ranju Devi) wife of Sukhnandan Singh, as against the appellants herein and Panwa Devi and Haro Devi, alleging therein that the deceased was married to appellant No.1 in December 1993. After marriage, deceased went to her matrimonial home and led peaceful married life for few years. Out of their wedlock, two children were born. It has further been alleged that the deceas