JUDGMENT
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.1.2000/17.1.2000 passed by Shri Awadh Kishore Singh Chauhan, 1st Additional Session Judge, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 299/1995, whereby and hereunder the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 304B, I.P.C. and one year R.I. under Section 201, I.P.C. each. However, both sentences ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Chinta Devi deceased was married with the appellant No. 3, Raj Kumar Mahto on 5.5.1992 and since after the marriage accused persons/appellants started demanding Rajdoot motorcycle and a golden Chain weighing two tolas and due to non-fulfilment of the demands, Chinta Devi was subjected to torture. It is further alleged that Chinta Devi whenever came to her Naihar she stated about the said demands and torture meted to her by the in-laws/appellants. It is further alleged that on 6.2.1995 at about 11 a.m. two persons of village Koriyadih came to the informant’s village and informed that his sister had fled away. On this information, informant alongwith his father and other rushed to the Sasural of the deceased. On enquiry, the accused persons disclosed that his sister has fled away. Therefore, the informant alongwith others started searching but she could not be traced out and as such they stayed in the night in the house of Jhugeshwar Mahto of Koriadih and again they started searching the victim on 7.2.1995 and they found the dead body of Chinta Devi in the well situated in the wheat field of Meglal Mahto. The dead body was taken out from the well. Accordingly, a written report was submitted to the police, on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against all the appellants, who appeared in the Court below.
3. Accordingly, charges were framed. Witnesses were also examined during trial. After having heard both sides and considering the evidences on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, in the manner as stated above.
4. There is no denial that the dead body of Chinta Devi was taken out from the well situated in the wheat field of Meglal Mahto. It is also apparent from the post mortem report that doctor opined about the cause of death by asphyxia due to strangulation, and so it is clear that she was murdered and thrown in the well and it is a homicidal death.
5. As many as nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. According to him, she was married with Raj Kumar Mahto, appellant No. 1 as back as on 5.5.1992. He further stated that there was a demand of motorcycle and a golden chain by the appellants, which could not be fulfilled due to poverty. He also deposed that Chinta Devi, deceased used to narrate about the fact of torture whenever she comes to Naihar. He stated in his cross-examination as well that he reported the matter about the demand of dowry to the police station. He gave out further that his daughter was not allowed to come with him during Bidai on the ground that the demand was not fulfilled and for which he also called Panchayati.
6. P.W. 2 to 5 have not stated anything about the prosecution case. P.W. 6 also corroborated story of demand of Rajdoot motorcycle and a golden chain, as made by the appellants. According to him, two persons had come on 6.2.1995 and informed that his niece is missing. He had also gone there to search out his niece and her dead body was found in the well of one Meghlal Mahto.
7. P.W. 7 also participated in tracing out Chinta Devi, but her dead body was found in the well.
P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, who claimed to have visited the place of occurrence and also recorded the evidence of witnesses. He prepared the Inquest Report, Ext. 2, and had sent the dead body for post mortem.
8. P.W. 9 is the brother of the deceased. He is also consistent in stating about demand of Rajdoot motorcycle and golden chain by the appellants and Chinta Devi was subjected to torture as the demand could not be fulfilled. Chinta Devi herself used to state about the torture made by the appellants. He further stated that the dead body of Chinta Devi was taken out from well and he had seen black mark on the neck of Chinta Devi at the relevant time. He had told his brother-in-law that they are not in a position to fulfil the demand but even then his sister was subjected to torture regularly and for which there was also Panchayati.
9. Sams Bin Raja was examined as Court witness, who is Pharmacist in Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and he had proved post mortem report, Ext. 4. He claimed to have worked with Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, C.A.S. for about one and half years in the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and that is why he identified the writing and signature of Dr. Arun Kumar Verma.
10. One defence witness has been examined and he being the Ex-Mukhiya stated that appellant, Raj Kumar Mahto submitted a petition about missing of his wife on 6.2.1995 (Ext. A).
11. There is no denial that Chinta Devi was married with the appellant, Raj Kumar Mahto on 5.5.1992 and she died on 5/6.2.1995 and so obviously the death occurred within seven years of the marriage. The post mortem report also goes to establish that she died due to strangulation. There is a specific and definite case of the prosecution that there was a demand of motorcycle and a golden chain from the side of the appellants and due to non-fulfilment of the said demand, Chinta Devi was subjected to torture regularly. P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 are very consistent and definite in their depositions about the demand of dowry and torturing the deceased prior to death occurred. P.W. 7 being the independent witness also participated in searching Chinta Devi and her dead body was found in the well and he had also seen black mark on the neck at the relevant time, which finds support from the medical evidence as well.
12. Four ingredients are essential to constitute the offence under Section 304B (dowry death) :
(i) death of woman is either by burns or bodily injury or otherwise even under normal circumstances;
(ii) it should be within seven years of marriage;
(iii) it should also be shown that soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or relative of the husband;
(iv) such harassment of cruelty should pertain to demand for dowry.
12. Obviously, Chinta Devi died due to strangulation being the homicidal death, which cannot be simply drawning by asphyxia. Death also occurred within seven years of marriage. It has consistently been stated by the witnesses, though the relatives, but are natural that Chinta Devi was subjected to cruelty and torture due to non-fulfilment of the said demands. It has also been established that the appellants were demanding motorcycle and golden chain in dowry and due to non-fulfilments of the said demand, she was put into harassment from before.
13. Section 113B of the Evidence Act reads as follows :
“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.”
14. In view of the evidence collected, it is evident that Chinta Devi was subjected to torture or harassment for demand of dowry even before her death. Thus, presumption will automatically go against the appellants for causing dowry death.
15. The dead body was admittedly taken out from the well of one Meglal Mahto situated nearby of her Sasural and admittedly Chinta Devi was living at her Sasural before the occurrence, which also proves that the death of Chinta Devi occurred in the otherwise circumstances, which will go against the appellants.
16. Mr. T.R. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no independent witness to support prosecution case.
It is true that P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 are own relatives of the deceased but P. W. 7 is an independent witness who had seen the dead body and found black mark on the neck.
17. It is well settled that related is not equivalent to interested. A witness who is natural one and is the only possible witness in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be interested witness. Mere relation of witness with the deceased is no ground to discard his evidence. Moreover, in such type of cases, none of the villagers will come forward to go against the own villagers. The witnesses supporting the prosecution case are natural and the only possible witnesses in the circumstances of the case and as such submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants has got no force in this respect.
18. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that doctor has not been examined in this case and the post mortem report cannot be taken into account as well as the appellant, Raj Kumar Mahto, had also submitted a written application before Mukhiya stating that his wife is missing and so there was no laches on the part of appellants.
This submission of the learned Counsel has also got no substance in view of the fact that the said application was submitted on 6.2.1995 whereas the occurrence took place on 5.2.1995. Moreover, there was no reason as to why he had not reported the matter to the police, when the written report by the brother of the deceased was submitted on 7.2.1995 on the date the dead body was recovered from well. So, this application appears to have been filed after-thought as well this application, Ext. 4 does not contain any seal of Mukhiya. Further, as regards to the post mortem report, it was proved by the Court witness, who was posted in the Sadar Hospital with the said doctor who held post mortem and he claimed to have identified the writing and signature of the doctor. Since, he was quite conversant with the writing and signature of the doctor who held post mortem and as such he has rightly proved the criminal post mortem report, Ext. 4, and the said post mortem report has validly been looked into and considered in the case, when there is no denial about the death of Chinta Devi. In this score also, the submission of the learned Counsel is of no avail.
19. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances coupled with the evidences on record, it is evident that the prosecution has fully established the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, I find that the learned Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, which does not require for any interference.
20. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.