JUDGMENT
D.P. Singh, J.
1. Both the appeals arising out of common judgment have been taken together to be disposed of together. The appellants have been convicted under Section 498A and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in S.T. No. 88 of 2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, however no separate sentence has been awarded under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts leading to their conviction are that Kanchan Kumari sister of Informant Manoj Kumar Rajak was married with appellant Badesh Rajak of Chaura village P.S. Lesli Ganj who died within two years of her marriage with burn injuries. The informant has further asserted that her sister used to complain regarding ill treatment by her in laws for not bringing sufficient dowry earlier. According to informant, P.W. 3, his sister Kanchan Kumari has come to her Naihar to appear in matric examination and she was taken back by the appellants on 6.6.1999. He further asserted that Kanchan was not willing to go back out of fear that she will be against subjected to torture for dowry by the appellants. However she was sent back with the appellant to her matrimonial house. The informant got news in the morning of 8.6.1999 that her sister has died. He went to Chaura village and found his sister dead with burn injuries. Thereafter he informed the police; police arrived at the house of the appellant and recorded his statement. The dead boy was seized; inquest report prepared and post mortem was conducted.
3 The Lesli Ganj police on this written information registered Lesli Ganj P.S. Case No. 29 of 1999 on 8.6.99. The police further investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet against both of the appellants under Section 496A, 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions. The learned lower court has framed charge against both of them under Section 304B, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court after examining witnesses of prosecution and defence found and held both of them guilty under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to serve R.I for ten years.
4. Both the appellants have filed separate appeal against their conviction asserting therein that the learned lower court has committed mistake of facts and law. According to their learned Counsel, the prosecution story that she was subjected to torture for dowry demands has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that the learned lower court has not appreciated the fact that information regarding death of Kanchan Kumari was given to them by the appellants and they have not concealed the fact that Kanchan Kumari died due to accidental fire. It is further submitted that the deceased was brought to hospital Tumbagarha for her treatment just after the accident but she could not survive it is further asserted that in the entire prosecution version the demand of dowry has been made at belated stage and it is not connected with the death of Kanchan Kumari. It is also asserted that the learned lower court has not given due consideration to the defence version and ignored the DWs who were independent and truthful.
5. Heard both sides at length. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed the points mentioned above and submitted that the learned lower court has missed the aspect that prosecution has failed to connect the death of Kanchan Kumar with dowry demands and torture for the same. It is submitted that from the fardbeyan and the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 it is difficult to connect the death of Kanchan Kumari with dowry demands and torture for the same. The learned Counsel drew my attention towards the fact that in the Fardbeyan, Manoj Rajak has not stated any specific amount of money demanded by way of dowry He asserted that Kanchan Kumari used to complain that her in-laws were demanding something for food and drinks. The learned Counsel further drew my attention towards the fact that this fact has been improved by saying that the appellants were demanding Rs. 50,000/- to open a dry clean shop which is contradictory and creates reasonable doubts in the prosecution version. It was further pointed out that the death as alleged being caused by the appellants has not been proved by any evidence on record. According to learned Counsel, Kanchan Kumari received burn injury accidentally while she was preparing food in the noon of 06.06.1999 and this fact has been brought on record by DWs, however this fact has not been considered properly.
6 In this context the learned Counsel further pointed out that the appellants informed the prosecution regarding the death of Kanchan Kumari and if they had anything to hide they could not have informed them regarding death of Kanchan Kumari. It was further pointed out that the post mortem report mentions that death has occurred on 6.6.1999 itself as post mortem was conducted by P.W. 6, Dr. A.K. Das in the evening of 7.6.1999 showing that death might have occurred 24-30 hours before that fits in with the story of the defence that Kanchan received burn injuries in the noon of 6.6.1999 itself. It was further pointed out that P.W. 1, 2 and 3 have admitted that Juga Baitha, uncle of the appellant has gone to inform regarding death of Kanchan Kumari. It was further pointed out that the informant P.W. 3 has himself admitted that he has gone to burn the dead body and he has been informed that Kanchan Kumari was treated at Tumbagarha hospital before her death My attention was drawn towards the minor contradiction regarding presence of Laxman Baitha and Badesh Rajak at the alleged time of accident in which Kanchan Kumari has received burn injuries. Learned Counsel for the appellants further pointed out that in such cases the settled law is that unless the dowry demands were connected with the death of the bride properly, the adverse inference and presumption against the appellants should not have been drawn. In this context he relied upon Apex Criminal Reports 2006ACR1 and JLJR(4)759. According to learned Counsel, unless prosecution established firmly that dowry demands were made at regular intervals and within short span of time before the actual death has occurred, the presumption of dowry death against the appellants was not justified.
7. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed this contention on the grounds that Kanchan has died after receiving burn injuries within seven years of her marriage and the prosecution has asserted that she was subjected to dowry demands and torture.
8. I have carefully gone through the evidence available on the lower court records and the arguments advances by the learned Counsel for the appellants. It is unfortunate that Kanchan Kumari died within two years of her marriage with appellant Badesh Rajak. It is further unfortunate that the informant Manoj Rajak has asserted demand of dowry by the appellants and claimed that Kanchan Kumari died due to burn injuries caused by the appellants. This is most unfortunate that Kanchan Kumari lost her life due to burn injuries. However in such circumstances the law provides in certain facts, presumption against the in-laws if prosecution alleges torture for dowry demands and due to non-fulfillment of such demands death occurred. In the present case a suggestion was made in the Fardbeyan of P.W. 3 that the appellants were not happy with Kanchan Kumari and they usually taunted her to ask for money for food and drinks. However this has been further developed during examination before the court and he demanded Rs. 50,000/- for the purpose of opening of a dry clean shop. Thus there is definitely some improvement in the allegations made on 8.6.1999. The fads on record further shows that dead body of Kanchan Kumari was seen by P.W. 3 in the house of the appellant on 8.6.1999 and her dead body was subjected to post mortem examination in the evening of 7.6.1999 by P.W. 6. This post mortem report mentions that death might have occurred in the noon of 6.6.1999 itself due to accidental burn injuries. The question therefore remains under what circumstances she got those burn injuries in the noon of 6.6.1999. The prosecution has asserted that burn was caused by the appellants. The DWs 1, 2 and 3 on examination before the court has admitted that Kanchan Kumari received burn injuries because of accidental fire while she was preparing food. It has also come on record that after this accident she was brought to Tumbagarha hospital from where her dead body was taken for post mortem examination. If the appellants could have caused burn injuries to Kanchan Kumari it is quite unnatural that they could have brought her to Tumbagarha hospital for her treatment rather they could have tried to conceal the death from the informant and immediately disposed of the dead body without postmortem examination.
9. The prosecution has examined P.W. 7 who has recorded the statement of P.W. 3 and investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet. He has admitted in examination in chief that the inquest report of dead body was already prepared and post mortem completed before he took up charge of investigation. The inquest report was prepared at 3. p.m. on 7.6.1999 and the written report was submitted on 8.6.99 as per (Ext. 2) at 8.20 a.m. it shows that the police took up the charge of the dead body in the evening of 7.6.99 while the FIR was lodged in the morning of 8.6.99 and even in the morning of 8.6.99 no specific allegation regarding demand of dowry has been clearly mentioned by P.W. 3. The father, mother and brother of the deceased have further admitted in their cross examination that Kanchan Kumari used to visit frequently before her death but has not complained regarding ill treatment meted out to her by the appellants to any body out of the family. All these facts when considered in the back ground that deceased was taken to Tumbagarha hospital for her treatment after she received burn injuries is an important matter which has not been considered by the learned lower court.
10. Having considered the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I find and hold that the prosecution in the present fact has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that Kanchan Kumari was subjected to cruelty immediately before 6.6.1999 for non fulfillment of any specific dowry demands. Accordingly, I find and hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Section 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubts. In such view of the facts, the conviction of the appellants can not be sustained. Accordingly, I find that the present appeals have got merit and deserves to be allowed and are hereby allowed. In result, the appellants are acquitted of the charges and released from the liabilities of their bail bonds.