ORDER
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. As both the appeals arise out of the common judgment, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellants, Bisheshwar Thakur and Savitri Devi are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased respectively in Cr. Appeal No. 209 of 2001.
3. Appellant-Nand Kishore Thakur is the husband of the deceased in Cr. Appeal No. 244 of 2001.
4. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.5.2001 and 16.5.2001 respectively, passed, by Mr. Harish Chandra Mishra, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 168 of 1998, convicting the appellants under Section 304B, IPC and sentencing them to under go RI for ten years.
5. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
Nuneshwar Thakur (PW 7) the father of the deceased-Geeta Devi, lodged fardbeyan to the effect that on 5.6.1998 at about 11 p.m. in the night, he was informed that condition of his daughter-Geeta Devi was critical and was admitted in the clinic of Dr. Sanjay Kumar (PW 9), whereupon he along with his family members went to the clinic and found his daughter in an unconscious stage where she was beingtreated. The doctor informed him that his daughter consumed ‘Kanail’ (a poisonous seed) and her condition was very serious. The informant took his daughter for better treatment to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and in course of treatment she died in the morning. Geeta Devi was married with Nand KiShore Thakur about two years prior to the occurrence. In the marriage, dowry was also given. After about six months of marriage, in-laws of the deceased started torturing and subjecting her to cruelty for further demand of dowry of Rs. 7,000 cash, T.V. and money for constructing the house and they were threatening the deceased to ask her father to meet the demand of dowry otherwise she would not be allowed to live properly in her ‘sasuraL As the informant was in service, the in-laws of Geeta Devi always made some demands, which could not be met. About seven days prior to the occurrence, he went to sasural of Geeta Devi where he was informed by his daughter that her husband was demanding Rs. 7,000, T.V. and money for constructing the house. He complained about the same to the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Geeta Devi, whereupon they also took the side of their son. He tried to take his daughter back, whereupon his son-in-law became angry and threatened to contract another marriage. The mother-in-law also did not allow Geeta Devi to go with the informant. He tried to hold apanchayati, whereupon the father-in-law of Geeta Devi assured him to pacify the matter and then he returned back to his house. Subsequently, he learnt that on 5.6.1998 at about 12 noon, Geeta Devi took poison but she was brought for treatment at about 10 p.m. in the night. The informant alleged that appellants had committed dowry death of his daughter.
6. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, in support of the appeal, submitted that the conviction is based on the testimony of the interested witnesses; some of them were not examined by the police during investigation but they were examined, for the first time in Court and therefore, the same should be discarded. He further submitted that appellants took the deceased for treatment and in view of this conduct it cannot be said that she was tortured or was being treated with cruelty. He further submitted that if the demand of dowry was being made no body was informed about the same for two years prior to the date of occurrence. He also submitted that some of the witnesses said that there was no quarrel between the deceased and her in-laws. He relied on certain decisions in support of this case.
7. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, learned APP appeared for the State and submitted that doctor has found that Geeta Devi died due to poison-Celphos which is a grain preservative and is highly poisonous. He further submitted that appellants tried to mislead the informant and others by sayingthat she consumed Kanail seeds. He further submitted that demand of dowry has been fully proved, especially against Nand Kishore Thakur (the husband). He referred to the evidence of PW 7, the father of the victim to show that when this witness visited his daughter she was assaulted by the accused persons on that day also and when he tried to bring his daughter back, Nand Kishore Thakur threatened that he would contract another marriage.
8. After carefully scrutinising of the evidences, when I expressed my view that 1 am not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal, Mr. Rajendra Prasad submitted that appellant Nand Kishore Thakur has remained in jail continuously from 7.6.1998 i.e. more than seven years, out of sentence often years and therefore in case the conviction is upheld, at least sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. With regard to the appellants, Bisheshwar Thakur and Savitri Devi, he submitted that nothing specific has come against them and rather the informant himself has said that Bisheshwar Thakur always tried to pacify the matter.
9. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, learned APP, could not dispute this position.
10. After hearing the parties and carefully scrutinising the materials on record, I find that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against Nand Kishore Thakur for the offence under Section 304B, IPC. In such cases, it is difficult to find an eye-witness regarding administering or consuming poison. But the fact remains that the deceased died within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances in the house of the appellant-Nand Kishore Thakur. He could not discharge the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. Only because, interested witnesses have said about demand of dowry, their testimony cannot be brushed aside. There is nothing in the cross-examination to help the appellant-Nand Kishore Thakur.
So far as the case of appellant-Bisheshwar Thakur and Savitri Devi is concerned, I am satisfied that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against them beyond all reasonable doubts. Appellant-Bisheshwar Thakur has always tried to pacify the matter between Nand Kishore Thakur and his in-laws. The allegations of demand of dowry, torture, etc. are vague and general against Bisheshwar Thakur and Savitri Devi.
11. In the circumstances, Bisheshwar Thakur and Savitri Devi are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and the judgment of conviction and sentence against them, is set aside.
12.1 am inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Rajendra Prasad that the sentence of appellant Nand Kishore Thakur can be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
13. In the result, Cr. Appeal No. 209 of 2001 is allowed and the judgment under appeal against appellants Bisheshwar Thakur and Savitri Devi is set aside. As they are already on bail, they are discharged from their bail bonds. The judgment of conviction of the appellant-Nand Kishore Thakur in Cr. Appeal No. 244 of 2001 is upheld with the modification in the sentence to the extent the period he has already undergone. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.