The court emphasized that to convict under dowry death, evidence must convincingly establish cruelty and demand for dowry, which was not proved in this case.

CAV JUDGMENT 

Date: -11-2017

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 and 06.08.2014 respectively passed by Shri Ram Pratap Asthana, Adhoc ADJ IV, Rohtas at Sasaram whereby and whereunder appellant aforesaid has been convicted under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the I.P.C.’) and further sentenced to undergo RI for ten years.

2. Facts in brief of the prosecution story may be stated as under- It is said that informant's sister Rubi (the deceased) was married with the Appellant Sudhir Mishra on 07.05.2009 and she had two children out of her wedlock with the appellant. The father of Rubi (now deceased) died one year after the marriage and thereafter, she was subjected to harassment on demand of a motorcycle. it is alleged that informant's sister used to inform the informant that inmates of her ‘Sasural’’ abuse and torture her and also threaten to kill her and it is also told by her mother-in-law Malti Devi and sister-in-law Puja Kumari that appellant would be remarried after killing deceased Rubi,. Informant had earlier once gone for ‘Bidai’ of his sister but it was not allowed. On 30.04.2013, the deceased Rubi was talking to her mother on phone which was snatched away by the appellant and then switched off and during the course deceased Rubi had told that inmates of her ‘Sasural’’ wanted to kill her. Further case is that on 01.05.2013, deceased Rubi was killed and dead body was burnt. This information was given by the appellant Sudhir Mishra himself and he had also assured that dead body would be burnt after the arrival of the informant and others. Deceased Rubi was not brought to any hospital for treatment nor any information was given to Police Station. On the basis of written report of informant filed on 02.05.2013, Chutia PS Case No 15/2013 was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant, accordingly cognizance was taken.

3. After commitment of the case, the trial proceeded. Prosecution has examined altogether 11 witnesses which will be dealt with hereinafter. From the trends of cross-examination as also the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., defence stand is of total denial and of false implication.

4. On perusal of the judgment under appeal, I find that learned court below has found that deceased came to her death within seven years of her marriage and the dead body was cremated hurriedly. He has further found that there was demand of motorcycle in dowry which was not fulfilled and for that deceased was being tortured and subjected to cruelty. Learned court below has further held that prosecution has well proved the charges by adducing cogent and corroborative evidence.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that learned court below has completely failed to appreciate the evidences available on the record rather he has gone more sentimental than realistic in his approach. The testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.5 have not been considered at all while they all are independent witness, being the co-villager of the appellant. He further submitted that it is clear from the evidence that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage and the deceased gave birth to two children within five years span of marriage indicating that there was cordial relationship between the appellant and the deceased but learned court below has completely ignored the evidences of witnesses in this regard. Learned counsel further contended that I.O. (P.W.11) has contradicted the evidence