Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 821 (PAT)

Kamlesh Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-24

CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD

body2007
Judgment CHANDRAM MOHAN PRASAD, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment of conviction dated 13th January, 2003 and the order of sentence dated 15th January, 2003 whereby each of the appellants has been convicted under Sections 304-B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Kamlesh Chaudhary has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years under Section 304-B/34, IPC and each of the remaining three appellants, namely, Sheo Chaudhary, Deorani Devi and Umesh Chaudhary has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 304-B/34, IPC. Each of the four appellants has further been sentenced to R.I. for three years under Section 201/34, IPC. 2. The prosecution commenced with the FIR (Ext-6) which has lodged on 25th August, 1998 at 10.00 a.m. at Haspura Police Station on the statement of Chaukidar Bishun Paswan (PW 19) who appeared before the Officer In-Charge of the Police Station and stated that in the morning of that day (25.8.1998) while he was moving in Haspura Bazar, he received information that in the night of 24.8.1998 Kamlesh Chaudhary, Sheo Chaudhary @ Bhagal Chaudhary and Deorani Devi under common intention killed the wife of Kamlesh Chaudhary and then after burning the same, had concealed it somewhere. The cause of occurrence was not known, hence under these circumstances he (the informant) appeared at the Police Station and gave information for the purpose of taking action in the matter. 3. On the basis of the FIR, investigation commenced and on completion of the same, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants who were tried and thereafter they have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as above. As many as twenty witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The defence also examined two defence witnesses. Out of the PWs, PW 19 Bishun Paswan is the informant. PW 18 Dr. Ravi Ranjan conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of the deceased, PW 20 Janardan Singh is the I.O. of the case, PW 2 Shrawan Sah, PW 4 Ramesh Chaudhary, PW 5 Munna Chaudhary and PW 7 are the co-villagers of the appellants but they have turned hostile to the prosecution. PW 1 Rajendra Dom, PW 3 and PW 9 Bijay Dom are the scavengers who took out the dead body from the water-weeds in a ditch near the house of appellants. PW 1 Rajendra Dom, PW 3 and PW 9 Bijay Dom are the scavengers who took out the dead body from the water-weeds in a ditch near the house of appellants. PW 8 Ramjeet Singh is a witness on the point of recovery of the dead-body, PW 10 Satyadeo Singh is a photographer who is said to have taken snap of the dead body. PW 11 Anil Kumar is a witness on the point of preparation of inquest report of the dead body. PW 14 Ramesh Singh is a witness with regard to preparation of production list regarding production of one letter of appellant Kamlesh Chaudhary by deceaseds father Karu Chaudhary. PW 12 Surendra Kumar is a co-villager of deceaseds father, PW 13 Urmila Devi is the mother of the deceased, PW 15 Ramesh Chaudhary is the brother of the deceased. PW 16 Bina Devi is the sister of the deceased and PW 17 Karu Chaudhary is the father of the deceased. PW 6 Arjun Chaudhary is a co-villager of the appellant. DW 1 Nand Kishore Prasad and DW 2 Raj Kishore Chaudhary have come to depose about the defence of the appellant that the appellant Kamlesh and other appellants were living separately and also that the appellants were not present in their house on the date of occurrence. DW 1 proved his signature (Ext-A) on the memorandum of partition and he also proved Ext.-D which is medical prescription of Dr. A.S. Akhtar. DW 2 proved the marriage card saying that the marriage card was printed in his presence. 4. Firstly, I would take up the evidence of the Doctor PW 18 who conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of deceased Mina Devi, aged about 22 years, wife of appellant Kamlesh Chaudhary. He deposed that on 26th August, 1998 at about 6.30 a.m. he conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of wife of Kamlesh Choudhary and found the following : Both eyes were closed, Mouth open, tongue protruded, rigour mortis absent in all the 4 limbs, whole body was decomposed and skin burnt. On dissection: Skull; brain mater was intact and congested. Neck sub-cutaneous tissues of the neck was ocdematous congested and haematoma. The cricoid cartrilage and hyoid bones were found fractured. Underlying tissues were lacerated. Chest-lungsthe lungs tissues were conjested and intact. The Paruchyra was full of mucoid fluid. On dissection: Skull; brain mater was intact and congested. Neck sub-cutaneous tissues of the neck was ocdematous congested and haematoma. The cricoid cartrilage and hyoid bones were found fractured. Underlying tissues were lacerated. Chest-lungsthe lungs tissues were conjested and intact. The Paruchyra was full of mucoid fluid. Heart : All the chambes were empty, stomach and intestine were full of foul smelling gas : Stomach contained digested food material, Urinary bladder was empty. The viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. Time elapsed from death and P.M. held : 48 to 78 hours. In the opinion of the Doctor, death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation and afterwards P.M. burnt, although viscera preserved for chemical analysis. Thus according to the doctor, who held the P.M. examination, the cause of death was strangulation. 5. The I.O. (PW 20) testified that on 25th August, 1998 he had recorded the FIR on the fardbeyan of the informant Bishun Paswan, Chaukidar. He has proved the fardbeyan as Ext. 6. He further deposed that he was entrusted with the investigation of the case and thereafter he proceeded to the P.O. village for investigation. He said that when he reached in the P.O. Mohalla, he got secret information that a dead body had been concealed in water-weeds in a ditch behind the house of the appellant and that on receiving this information, he called some scavengers from the village and got the dead-body recovered. He further deposed that he also prepared the inquest report of the dead body which was kept in a sack and three bricks were also found in the sack with the dead body. He proved the inquest report as Ext-7. He also deposed that he prepared a seizure-list of the sacks and the bricks. The seizure list has been proved as Ext-8. Then he has mentioned about his inspection of the P.O. which was the house of the appellant. The I.O. has given details of the rooms and the passage of the room. The I.O. also deposed that there was kharhi (cattle keeping place) near the house where the dead body is said to have been burnt. The I.O. further deposed that leaves of guava tree in the kharhi as well as some branches of bamboo in that Kharhi were found burnt. He also mentioned that the ground in the Kharhi appeared to have been besmeared (lipa-pota) with mud. The I.O. further deposed that leaves of guava tree in the kharhi as well as some branches of bamboo in that Kharhi were found burnt. He also mentioned that the ground in the Kharhi appeared to have been besmeared (lipa-pota) with mud. He also mentioned that in a room of the house he found Palang, trunk and mosquito net of the deceased kept there. The I.O. also deposed that the dead body had been recovered from the ditch which situated at a distance of 60 feet from the kharhi which was close to appellants house. He also deposed that after recovery of the dead body, he got it photographed by a photographer Satyadeo Singh (PW 10). At Para-10 he also deposed that deceaseds father (PW 17) had produced before him a letter written by the husband (appellant Kamlesh Chaudhary) of the deceased. The letter was already marked Ext-2 on the record. In Para-44 of his evidence the I.O deposed that appellant Umesh had been arrested at Ekangarsarai. He further deposed that he had not himself arrested Umesh but the police of Ekangar Sarai P.S. had arrested him. At Para-45 of his evidence, he deposed that in Para-107 of the case diary he had mentioned that Umesh (appellant) was living with his bahnoi (sisters husband) at Ekangarsarai and that therefore, he had informed the police at Ekanbgarsarai for his arrest. At Para-51 of his evidence, he deposed that deceaseds father Karu Chaudhary had not named the dewar appellant (Umesh Chaudhary) regarding the person who had demanded Rs. 30,000/-. 6. The informant (PW 19) has simply deposed that while he was moving in the village, he learnt that the Putohu of Sheo Chaudhary had died and learning this he went to the house of Sheo Chaudhary but he did not find any body there and that he learnt from village people there that the sasural people of the deceased had killed her hence, he came to the P.S. and gave his statement which was recorded as his fardbeyan. The fardbeyan has been proved as Ext-5. At Para-7 of his evidence, he deposed that the sasural of appellant Sheo Chaudhary is in village Chahuta and that on the date of occurrence, the mother-in-law of Sheo Chaudhary was ill and he also learnt that he (Sheo Chaudhary), his wife and son had gone to village Chahuta. The fardbeyan has been proved as Ext-5. At Para-7 of his evidence, he deposed that the sasural of appellant Sheo Chaudhary is in village Chahuta and that on the date of occurrence, the mother-in-law of Sheo Chaudhary was ill and he also learnt that he (Sheo Chaudhary), his wife and son had gone to village Chahuta. Thus, whatever the informant says about the mother-in-law of appellant Sheo Chaudhary being ill and about Sheo Chaudhary and son having gone to village Chahuta on the date of occurrence is entirely hearsay matter and the informant does not disclose from whom he had learnt this. The informant does not say to have himself seen the ailing mother-in-law or to have been the appellants going to village Chahuta. 7. PW 1 Rajendra Dom, PW 3 Bijay Dom and PW 9 Kamal Dom are the three scavengers who have deposed that on being called by the police officer of the P.S. they had gone there and had taken a dead body from the water-weed in a ditch near the house of Kamlesh Chaudhary and they learnt that the dead body was of the Putohu of Kamlesh Chaudhary. 8. PW 2 Sarban Sah, PW 4 Ramesh Chaudhary, PW 5 Munna Chaudhary and PW 7 Sudhan Chaudhary are the hostile witnesses who deposed that the wife of Kamlesh Choudhary had died due to receiving burn injury while cooking on stove and these witnesses have denied to have made police statement in support of prosecution case when their attention was drawn towards their previous statement made before the police. 9. PW 10 Satyadeo Singh is the photographer who deposed that on being called he had gone to the P.O. and had seen that a dead body was kept by the side of road and he learnt that it was the dead body of Mina Devi and that he had also snapped the photograph of the dead body and after developing the negative, he had handed over the photograph of the dead body to police. He proved the photograph which was marked Ext-x for identification. 10. PW 11 Anil Kumar proved his signature Ext-1/1 and 1 /2 on the seizure-list and the inquest report of the dead body. He deposed that the inquest report had been prepared in his presence through carbon process. He proved the photograph which was marked Ext-x for identification. 10. PW 11 Anil Kumar proved his signature Ext-1/1 and 1 /2 on the seizure-list and the inquest report of the dead body. He deposed that the inquest report had been prepared in his presence through carbon process. Though he again deposed that the papers were not prepared in his presence and he had put his signature on blank papers but this portion of his evidence is not believable in view of his own statement that the inquest report was prepared in his presence through carbon process. Thus, this witness is a witness on the point of the preparation of the seizure-list and the inquest report of the dead body. 11. PW 8 Ramjeet Singh deposed that darogqjee had shown him a dead body and had obtained his signature on a paper. The signature was marked Ex-1. This witness admits his signature on the seizure list but he says that he had not seen from which place the dead body was recovered and that he had signed on a blank paper. 12. PW 6 Arjun Chaudhary deposed that he heard that the wife of Kamlesh Chaudhary died due to burning in fire. He also deposed that the sasural people of the wife of Kamlesh were torturing and harassing her. Hence, she died by burning in fire. 13. PW 14 Ramesh Singh, constable has deposed that Karu Chaudhary (deceaseds father) had produced a letter before the I.O. and that in his presence the I.O. had prepared a production list for the production of the letter and that he had put his signature on the production list. He has proved his signature Ex-3/1 on the production list. Para-4 of his evidence, he stated that the deceased was his cousin sister. At para-7 of his evidence he denied the defence suggestion that the letter produced was not in the writings of Kamlesh Chaudhary. 14. The most important evidence are the evidence of PWs 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 who are the father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased and it also includes the evidence of one co-villager of these witnesses. 14. The most important evidence are the evidence of PWs 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 who are the father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased and it also includes the evidence of one co-villager of these witnesses. The deceaseds father (PW 7) deposed that he had married his daughter in February 1992 to appellant Kamlesh Chaudhary and that after marriage his daughter (the deceased) went to her sasural and lived there for a month and thereafter he brought her back to his house. He further deposed that thereafter for 5 years, the sasural people did not take his daughter on bidagari to her sasural and during this period they continued demanding dowry. He further deposed that he went to deceaseds sasural to take stock of the situation and there the sasural people demanded Rs. 25,000/- and then he returned back to his house. He further deposed at Paras-5 and 6 that he arranged Rs. 25,000/- by taking loan and paid that money to the sasural people and that thereafter his son-in-law Kamlesh (appellant) came in February 1997 and took his daughter on bidai to her sasural. At para-7 he further deposed that thereafter his daughter lived in sasural for six months but during that period the mother- in-law, father-in-law and dewar tortured and harassed her and that his son-in-law (Kamlesh) also threatened that he will perform 2nd marriage with another lady. At para-8 he deposed that learning this he brought his daughter (deceased) to his house and that after two months his son-in-law on the insistence of his (son-in-laws) family gave him a letter on 13th September, 1997 wherein he had written that the daughter would not be taken to her sasural on bidai and that he will perform another marriage. The father (PW 17) further deposed at Para-9 that he learnt from some relatives that the sasural people were demanding Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-for purchasing decorating articles. Learning this he went to deceaseds sasural where Rs. 30,000/- was demanded from him by the sasural people. He returned to his house. Then he deposed that again taking loan he arranged Rs. 30,000/- and carried that money to deceaseds sasural and gave it to the appellant and returned back to his house. Then he deposed that in the year 1998 after Holi festival, his son-in-law came to his house and took his daughter on bidai to her sasural. Then he deposed that again taking loan he arranged Rs. 30,000/- and carried that money to deceaseds sasural and gave it to the appellant and returned back to his house. Then he deposed that in the year 1998 after Holi festival, his son-in-law came to his house and took his daughter on bidai to her sasural. He further deposed at para-12 that on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, his son-in-law had gone to his sisters house at Ekangarsarai and after Raksha-Bandhan he came from there to his (PW 17s) house and stayed there for 3-4 days. During this period, the son-in law demanded Rs. 10,000/- from his (PW 17s) wife i.e. mother-in-law who communicated this demand to him (PW 17). He further deposed that learning this, he met his son-in-law and expressed his inability in paying that money and thus he could not pay the amount. Due to non-fulfilment of this demand of Rs. 10,000/- the son-in-law became annoyed and he returned to his house. At Para-14 of his evidence, the father (PW 17) deposed that 10-12 days after this, he learnt that the sasural people had killed his daughter by throttling her and had concealed the dead body under water in a ditch behind their house and that police had recovered the dead body. He further deposed at Para-15 that he went to the P.S. on 13.9.1997 and he had given his son-in-laws letter to the police. He deposed that the letter was in the writing and signature of his son-in-law Kamlesh Chau-dhary. The letter has been marked Ext- 2. 15. It is relevant to mention here some contents of the letter dated 13.9.1997 (Ext-2). The end of this letter bears the signature of appellant Kamlesh Kumar. This letter was addressed to Mina, the deceased and it mentions that since the (the deceased) was not keeping good health, the family members of her sasural were not inclined to bring her to sasural and they were thinking to perform another marriage of him (Kamlesh Kumar). At para-51 he deposed that his son-in-law (Kamlesh) had purchased decorating articles from the money which he had given but he had no knowledge as to for how many days he carried on decoration shop. At para-51 he deposed that his son-in-law (Kamlesh) had purchased decorating articles from the money which he had given but he had no knowledge as to for how many days he carried on decoration shop. At para-68 he has denied the defence suggestion that on the date of occurrence appellant Kamlesh, his mother and father had gone to village Chahuta where the mother of Deorani Devi was ill and that the deceased was alone in the house and that some criminals tried to do indecent act with the deceased and when she protested, the unknown criminals had killed the deceased and threw the dead body. Thus, the deceaseds father denied the defence suggestion and he has supported the prosecution case that the deceased was tortured and harassed due to non-fulfil- merit of the demand and that shortly after non- fulfilment of demand of Rs. 10,000/-she was done away with and her dead body was concealed in water in a ditch behind the house of the appellants. 16. PW 13 Urmila Devi is the mother of the deceased. She deposed on 14.12.2001 that her daughter Mina (the deceased) was married to Kamlesh Chaudhary 10 years back. Here the learned counsel for the appellant raised a question that the marriage of the deceased was not performed within 7 years of the occurrence. According to the case of the prosecution, the marriage was performed in February 1992 and, thus, it was within 7 years of the occurrence which took place in the night of 23rd/24th August, 1998. Referring the evidence of the mother (PW 14) who deposed on 14.12.2001 that the marriage was performed 10 years back, learned counsel for the appellant argued that according to the informant, the marriage was performed in the year 1991. But considering the date of evidence which is 14.12.2001, the period 10 years when counted backwards it will come to 14.12.1991. According to the prosecution case, the date of marriage is February 1992. The date "14.12.1991" is very close to the date falling in the month of February 1992 and there is a margin of less than two months only. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn on this score in favour of the defence case that the marriage was performed not in February 1992 but in February 1991. The mother further deposed that the sasural people of Mina killed her. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn on this score in favour of the defence case that the marriage was performed not in February 1992 but in February 1991. The mother further deposed that the sasural people of Mina killed her. She deposed that after marriage, the deceased had gone to her sasural and she had lived there for one month and thereafter she came back to her maika. She further deposed that thereafter she remained in her maika for 5 years and the sasural people did not take her to her sasural due to non- fulfilment of demand of dowry. She also deposed that the sasural people were demanding Rs. 25,000/- as dowry and that Rs. 25,000/- was given to Kamlesh (husband) and that thereafter, he took the deceased to her sasural and thereafter she lived there for six months and thereafter she came to mothers house. She further deposed that after coming to her maika, Kamlesh threatened to perform another marriage if the demand of Rs. 30.000/- was not fulfilled and that thereafter, they gave Rs. 30,000/- again to the sasural people and then Kamlesh took her daughter to her sasural. 17. At Para-3 of her evidence, the mother-in-law (PW 13) has deposed that her daughter Mina (the deceased) had told her (PW 13) that her (deceaseds) husband, father-in-law and mother-in- law used to beat her for dowry. She continued to depose that her son-in-law Kamlesh came to her house and demanded Rs. 10,000/-but she did not give that money to him hence, he (Kamlesh) returned to his house. She further deposed that after that she learnt that the sasural people of the deceased killed her and burnt the dead body. At Paras 10 and 11 of her evidence she (PW 13) deposed that her elder sister Lalpari Devi was married to Karu Choudhary and Mina (the deceased) was daughter of Lalpari Devi. At Para-12 she further deposed that while taking Rs. 30,000/- Kamlesh had told that after making profits in business, he will return Rs. 30,000/- but he did not return even a single pai. Here the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the money taken was not dowry but it was the loan amount. The learned APP submitted that no doubt PW 13 says that Kamlesh had said that he will return Rs. 30,000/- but he did not return even a single pai. Here the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the money taken was not dowry but it was the loan amount. The learned APP submitted that no doubt PW 13 says that Kamlesh had said that he will return Rs. 30,000/- but it was mere a talk and the evidence is that the money i.e. Rs. 30,000/-had been taken as consideration for taking the decision of bidai to her sasural. He also submitted that there is evidence that the appellants were not taking the deceased to her sasural and it was only after payment of Rs. 30,000/- that they took her to her sasural and thus, it was dowry amount. The learned APP also submitted that the appellants did not return even a single pai and that it was not a loan but dowry. Learned APP also referred to the evidence of the witnesses that lastly the appellant Kamlesh had gone to deceased maika and demanded Rs. 10,000/- from his mother-in-law, he returned back to his house and within a short period, which according to the father (PW 17) was 10-12 days, the deceased was killed and her dead body was concealed under water. She further deposed that the deceased had complained to her father, mother and other members of the family of her maika that the sasural people were torturing and harassing her. It was argued by the learned APP that the deceased had been tortured and harassed in connection with demand of dowry and that torture and harassment had continued till the date of occurrence when dowry death was committed by way of causing the death not under normal circumstances. 18. At Para-15 of her evidence PW 15 denied the defence suggestion that the deceased was alone in her sasural house and she was killed by unknown criminals and that unknown criminals had burnt the dead body, kept it in a sack and threw it. 19. PW 15 Ramesh Chaudhary, the brother of the deceased was 18 years of age when he deposed on 22nd July, 2002. The marriage was performed about 10 years back, hence this boy was of 8 years at that time. 19. PW 15 Ramesh Chaudhary, the brother of the deceased was 18 years of age when he deposed on 22nd July, 2002. The marriage was performed about 10 years back, hence this boy was of 8 years at that time. But he has deposed that the marriage was performed in the year 1992 and that after marriage when his sister (the deceased) had to be sent to her sasural in gauna, the sasural people had demanded Rs. 25,000/- and that it was only on fulfilment of that demand that she was taken by sasural people to her sasural in gauna. He also deposed that when his sister came back to her maika and thereafter again Rs. 30,000/- was demanded by the sasural people and that this time on payment of Rs. 30,000/- she was taken to her sasural He also deposed that on the day of Raksha-Bandhan, Kamlesh had come to his village and had demanded Rs. 10,000/- and that when his mother did not give that money saying that she had no money, Kamlesh Chaudhary returned to his house and that a few days after that the sasural people had killed the deceased by strangulating her and concealed the dead body under water-weeds. He stated at para-12 that at the time of marriage of the deceased, he was a school going boy. Thus, PW 15 though he was a minor boy at the time of marriage of the deceased and the occurrence, he being a member of the family was aware of the happenings and he has deposed about the demand of dowry made by the appellant and the fulfilment of the same as also about the circumstances indicating the commission of dowry death. 20. PW 16 Bina Devi is the sister of the deceased. She deposed that the deceased was married to Kamlesh Chaudhary in February 1992. She has also deposed that after marriage the deceased came to her maika, she remained there for 5 years and thereafter, the sasural people took her to sasural in gauna only on payment of Rs. 25,000/-, At Para-5 of her evidence, she deposed that when her sister (the deceased) came to her maika, she weepingly disclosed that the sasural people were threatening to perform another marriage of the husband (Kamlesh) and that thereafter the sasural people demanded Rs. 30,000- Rs. 40,000/-for purchasing decoration articles and when her father gave Rs. 25,000/-, At Para-5 of her evidence, she deposed that when her sister (the deceased) came to her maika, she weepingly disclosed that the sasural people were threatening to perform another marriage of the husband (Kamlesh) and that thereafter the sasural people demanded Rs. 30,000- Rs. 40,000/-for purchasing decoration articles and when her father gave Rs. 30,000/-, she was taken to sasural in 1998. She also deposed that on the day of Raksha-Bandhan, deceaseds husband had come to her house and had demanded Rs. 10,000/- when it was not paid by her mother he became annoyed and returned to his house. She further deposed that ten days after that she learnt that the sasural people killed the deceased by throttling her. Thus, this witness says about the demand of dowry and the tortures to the deceased at the hand ofthe sasural people and their threatening to deceased for performing another marriage of Kamlesh for the purpose of extracting dowry. This witness has also deposed that when the last demand of Rs. 10,000/- was not fulfilled, the deceased was killed by throttling. 21. PW 12 Surendra Kumar is a co-villager of deceaseds father who deposed that Mina Devi (the deceased) had been married in February 1992. He also deposed that the sasural people did not take the deceased on gauna for five years and they were demanding Rs. 25,000/- and when Rs. 25,000/- was paid to Kamlesh, he took the deceased to her sasural. He also deposed that after 5/6 months, the deceased came to her maika and she told that the sasural people were ill-treating her and demanding money. This witness also deposed that appellant Kamlesh had also written a letter threatening to perform another marriage and Rs. 30,000/- was demanded for taking the deceased to her sasural. This witness has also deposed that when the parents of the deceased gave Rs. 30,000/- to Kamlesh Chaudhary, he took the deceased to her sasural. At Para-4 of his evidence, this witness deposed that in the year 1998, on the occasion of festival Raksha-Bandhan when Kamlesh Choud-hary had gone to his sister, he had also come to his sasural and lived there for 3/4 days and during this period, he had demanded Rs. 10,000/- from deceaseds mother and that when this money was not given to him, he had returned back to his house. 10,000/- from deceaseds mother and that when this money was not given to him, he had returned back to his house. At para-5 this witness further deposed that 10-12 days after that, the sasural people had killed her and had concealed the dead body. This witness further deposed that he, along with father of the deceased had gone to the Police Station for lodging a case. He also deposed that deceaseds father had given a letter written by Kamlesh Chaudhary to darogqjee and in that letter Kamlesh Chaudhary had expressed threatenings about the performance of another marriage. This witness has identified the writings and signatures of Kamlesh Chaudhary on the aforesaid letter which has been marked exhibit. He also deposed that when the letter was given to the darogajee, a production list had been prepared and he had put his signature on it as a witness. The signature has been marked as Ext-3/1. At para-22 of his evidence, this witness says that he had stated before the police that deceaseds father Karu Choudhary had told him that his son-in-law (Kamlesh Chaudhary) had demanded Rs. 30,000/-for purchasing decorating articles and he also assured that he will return the money after earning from business. Thus on consideration of the evidence of this witness I find that he supported the prosecution story that dowry was being demanded by the appellants and that within a short period when the last demand of Rs. 10,000/- was not fulfilled, the deceased was found dead, the death having occurred under abnormal circumstances rather by throttling. 22. On consideration of the evidence of PWs 13, 15, 16 and 17 who are father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased as well as PW 12 who is neighbour I find there is sufficient evidence to show that dowry had been demanded several times and that lastly Rs. 10,000/- and when demand was not fulfilled it was within 10-12 days of the non-fulfilment of the demand that the death of the deceased occurred under abnormal circumstances. It is also in the evidence of these witnesses that they had learnt from the deceased that the sasural people were always torturing and harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. 23. It is also in the evidence of these witnesses that they had learnt from the deceased that the sasural people were always torturing and harassing her in connection with demand of dowry. 23. In this case, the defence case as appearing in the suggestions given to the PWs is that on the date of occurrence the appellants were not in the house and that they had gone to village Chahuta for seeing the mother-in-law of Sheo Chaudhary. The PWs have denied the prosecution suggestion. The suggestion which have been denied by the PWs is of no avail, unless it is substantiated. The defence has examined two witnesses DW 1 proved his signature (Ext-A) on memorandum of partition but he is unable to say who had written the memorandum of partition. He does not say that any partition between Kamlesh Chaudhary and his father was effected in fact in his presence. The perusal of the Memo of partition shows that it is simply an arrangement to live in different rooms in a house and it does not mention about the partition and share in property. DW 1 has also proved Ext-B which is a medical prescription dated 20th August, 1998 of Dr. S. Akhtar of Aujharsharif (Hasanpura). This witness has simply proved the prescription but he is unable to say about the patient who was treated. Moreover, the defence has not examined the doctor himself to say about the treatment given to any Dulari Devi as written in the prescription. Thus there is no evidence to establish that the mother-in-law of appellant Sheo Chaud-hary was ill or that Seo Chaudhary, his wife and son had gone there to see her and that they were not present in the house when dowry death was caused. 24. DW 2 has also said that he has signed as a witness on the memorandum of partition but he does not say anything about the factum of partition taking place in his presence. This witness has produced the marriage card (marked X for identification) by simply saying that the card had been printed by Kumar Printers, Haspura in his presence. This marriage card mentions the date of marriage "5.2.1991." But the printer of the card has not been examined to say that he had printed the card. This witness has produced the marriage card (marked X for identification) by simply saying that the card had been printed by Kumar Printers, Haspura in his presence. This marriage card mentions the date of marriage "5.2.1991." But the printer of the card has not been examined to say that he had printed the card. Moreover the prosecution witnesses were not confronted with this card and they were not given an opportunity to explain it. The prosecution witnesses have adduced reliable evidence to show that the marriage was performed in February 1992. In such a situation, the marriage card does not inspire confidence to establish the claim that the marriage was held on 5.2.1991. 25. From the facts and circumstances and the evidence of record particularly considering the evidence of PW 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 I find there is sufficient evidence to indicate that dowry was being demanded and that it was also paid several times and that due to non-fulfilment of the demand, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment and dowry death was caused in abnormal circumstances. The husband i.e. Kamlesh Chaudhary, father-in-law Sheo Chaudhary and mother-in-law Deorani Devi, they are directly responsible for the commission of the dowry death. They deserve to be punished for this. They were also responsible for the concealment of the dead body after commission of the offence of dowry death. Therefore, their conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B/34 and 201/34 IPC as passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. 26. So far the case of appellant Umesh Chaudhary, dewar of the deceased is concerned. I find that there are circumstances to indicate that he was not living in deceaseds sasural house and he was living at Ekangarsarai where her sister was married. In this context, the evidence of deceaseds mother (PW 13, para- 13) is important where she says that her daughter (deceased) had told her that her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to beat her in connection with demand of dowry. Here, the name of Umesh Chaudary (dewar) is absent. Thus, the deceased does not say about any torture and harassment committed by the appellant Umesh Chaudhary. In this context the evidence of the I.O. (PW 20 Pages 44 and 45) is also important where he has stated that he had not arrested Umesh Chaudhary but the police of Ekangarsarai had arrested him. Thus, the deceased does not say about any torture and harassment committed by the appellant Umesh Chaudhary. In this context the evidence of the I.O. (PW 20 Pages 44 and 45) is also important where he has stated that he had not arrested Umesh Chaudhary but the police of Ekangarsarai had arrested him. The I.O. has also stated that he had informed Ekangarsarai police for arresting appellant Umesh Chaudhary and that he had mentioned at Para-107 of the case diary that accused-appellant Umesh Chaudhary was living at Ekangarsarai with his bahnoi (sisters husband). The I.O. has also stated at Para-51 of his evidence that the deceaseds father Karu Chaudhary had not stated in the name of Dewar (Umesh Chaudhary) amongst the persons who had demanded Rs. 30,000/- as dowry. In such view of the matters, the appellant Umesh Chaudhary is entitled to benefit of doubt, hence giving benefit of doubt he is acquitted of the charges and the conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court with respect to Umesh Chaudhary is set aside. He is also discharged from the liability of bail bonds. 27. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.