JUDGMENT
D.P. Singh, J.
Page 0342
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.7.2002 and 17.7.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 202/99, whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Sections 304B IPC and convinced and sentenced them to undergo RI for ten years.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant Bhagirath Rawani was married with deceased Bina Devi in May 1998 according to Hindu rites. It is further stated that just after the marriage the appellants, husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, used to torture her for one bed and Yamaha motorcycle as dowry. The deceased used to inform her parents regarding this. The informant Digambar Rawani placed an order for preparation of bed and assured to give motorcycle as and when money is arranged. However, on 30.11.98 at 6.45 AM Binod Rawani informed them that Bina was seriously ill. The informant along with his son reached Baghmara at Dumari and thereafter they went to Bhaghmara Referal Hospital and found Bina Devi lying dead in casualty ward. Accordingly a report was made to Baghmara police, on the basis of which Baghmara P.S. Case No. 304/98 was registered against both the appellants under Sections 304B IPC. The appellants were arrested and after investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the appellants. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions. The trial court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 304B/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. Their defence was that Bina died due to diarrhea. The trial court after examining witnesses found and held the appellants guilty under Sections 304B IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for ten years.
3. Appellant No. 1 has remained in custody for four years and nine months. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to consider the fact that the deceased died due to natural death and no positive evidence has been brought on record to connect them with dowry demand. It is further asserted that genesis of dowry demands were vague and omnibus to show that actually Bina died in course of any torture or ill-treatment by the appellants. It has been further Page 0343 asserted that the informant has expressed suspicion of poisoning but no forensic report supports this assertion. According to this memo of appeal the injuries found on the dead body was not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore appellants being innocent, may be acquitted of the charges.
4. The learned APP opposed this contention on the ground that the deceased suffered death within six months of the marriage and prosecution witnesses have supported the demand of dowry etc.
5. I have carefully gone through the materials available in the case record to ascertain whether deceased met her ends as suggested by defence. It is admitted case on record that the marriage of the deceased with appellant No. 1 took place in May, 98 and within six months she died. The post mortem report proved by PW 2, Dr. Binod Kumar, vide Ext. 1, mentions that there were ante mortem injuries on the dead body. He further found 20 cc fluid with pungent smell. The forensic report does not mention any poisonous substance, vide Ext.3. Therefore, the death appears to have been caused due to injuries found on the healthy body of deceased Bina Devi.
6. In this context the statement of PW 6, Digambar Rawani, vide para 2, provides the details of ante mortem injuries on the dead body that fingers were broken, blood was coming out of nose. He has been cross examined at length, in which he asserted, vide para 8, that he found injuries on the dead body. PW 1 Ashok Rawani, son of the informant, has supported his father in details. He further asserted, vide para 6 and 7 that the appellants demanded bed and motorcycle from them and used to torture the deceased. PW 3, Shushila Devi, is the mother of the deceased. This witness has also asserted in para 6 that four days before the death Bina had been taken to her sasural by appellant No. 1. She was suggested vide para 10 that deceased died after fainting. PW 4 Pintu Singh supported the case of the prosecution by saying that PW 1 has asked him to prepare a bed, which was not taken afterwards. PW 5 has also supported the prosecution case. She has seen the dead body.
7. PWs 7 and 8 have been declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not support the prosecution version rather they have stated that Bina used to be ill and she was under treatment by a doctor. No materials have been brought on record in support of the statement that deceased has suffered from any illness and she was under treatment by a doctor. Even the suggested diarrhea resulting in her death has not been brought on record by any evidence from the side of defence. PW 9 has supported the prosecution case that Bina was seen by him lying dead in the hospital.
8. The defence taken by the appellants during trial that they did not demand any dowry nor they ever tortured the deceased for non-fulfilment of dowry demand, which has not been supported by any positive evidence on their behalf. Even in the cross examination they have not suggested this fact to PWs 6,3,1, family members of the deceased. If the deceased was actually suffering from any illness or diarrhea and doctor has attended her before her death, then there must be some prescriptions or chit of papers to suggest like that. The appellants have not asserted this plea before the trial court at the time of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The post mortem report brought on record as Ext. 1 suggests that violence has resulted in death of Bina Devi and it cannot be stated to be natural death. In such circumstance when death has occurred within six months of the marriage in unnatural circumstance, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is attracted. The Page 0344 defence has not proved the circumstance in which death could have occurred. These facts have been discussed by the trial court vide para 9 and 10 of the judgment. The reason discussed by the trial appears to be sound in the facts of the case.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I find that the present appeal has got no merit in it and deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that sentences may be modified because of the fact that appellant No. 2 is a lady and appellant No. 1 has remained in custody for more than four years and nine months.
10. In view of the above stated facts, I find that the ends of justice would be served properly if the sentences are reduced to minimum prescribed sentence to serve RI for seven years.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in sentences. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and the trial court is directed to take steps for their apprehension.