JUDGMENT By Court: All the four appellants were put on trial to face charge under sections 304B/34, 302/34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for committing murder of one Sombari Mahatain. The trial court while acquitting all the appellants for offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act did find all the appellants guilty for the offence under section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the appellant Haru Mahato was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for an offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code whereas all other appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, no separate sentence was passed under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that Sombari Mahatain, daughter of the informant Jyoti Mahato (P.W.3) was married to the appellant Haru Mahato two years before the date of occurrence. At the time of marriage, Rs.48,000/-in cash as well as clothes and utensils etc. were given to them. For two months, Sombari Mahatain lived quite happily in her in-law’s place but thereafter all the appellants started taunting her by saying ‘Kali-Kali’ as she was of dark complexion. The accused persons then started asking her to bring Rs.30,000/-, otherwise she would be deserted and her husband would be taking another marriage. Haru Mahato used to come to her in-law’s place oftenly for taking money and the informant Jyoti Mahato some times gave Rs.1500/-and sometimes Rs.2000/-. In spite of that, Haru Mahato the other day came to his in-law’s place and asked for Rs.30,000/-for doing business but when the informant refused to oblige him, he went away along with his wife by giving threat that they will have to face dire consequence. On 31.10.2003 Bhismadeo Mahato, father of Haru Mahto came in the evening and told to the informant Jyoti Mahato (P.W.3) that his daughter has been admitted to TMH as she was ill. On getting this information, the informant Jyoti Mahato (P.W.3) sent his son Jethu Ram and nephew Deepak Mahato to TMH to see his daughter but when they went to TMH, they did not find Sombari Mahatain there and then both of them came to in-law’s place of Sombari Mahatain where they found her dead. On getting this information, the informant Jyoti Mahato (P.W.3) sent his son Jethu Ram and nephew Deepak Mahato to TMH to see his daughter but when they went to TMH, they did not find Sombari Mahatain there and then both of them came to in-law’s place of Sombari Mahatain where they found her dead. On getting this information, the informant Jyoti Mahato (P.W.3) came to his daughter’s place where police on getting information about the death of Sombari Mahatain had already reached over there and gave Fardbeyan (Ext.1/2) to one Arun Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Chandil Police Station, upon which formal First Information Report (Ext.4) was drawn. The said Sub-Inspector (P.W.7) took up the investigation and held inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report (Ext.3). Thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr.Lalan Choudhary (P.W.8), who on holding autopsy did find following injuries. 1.Lacerated wound 2.5 cm. x 2 cm. into muscle deep over right side of occipital scalp. On dissection – Occipital scalp was found contused 10 cm. x 5 cm. Whole brain on its left side was massively found contused. 2.Right side of muscle was found contused. Hyoid bone was found contused. 3.Larynx and tracheal was found congested and was having fine froth. According to Dr., death was caused on account of head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. Post mortem report was proved as Ext.5. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. Of them, Basudeo Mahato (cousin of the deceased) was examined as P.W.1 whereas P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are mother, father and brother of the deceased respectively. Other witnesses P.Ws. 5 and 6 have turned hostile. Defence has also examined one witness Shashi Ram Mahato as D.W.1, who has stated that relationship in between the wife and husband was quite good and the accused persons had never put forth any demand and had not committed murder of the deceased, rather the deceased died as she fell down while she was ill. Defence has also examined one witness Shashi Ram Mahato as D.W.1, who has stated that relationship in between the wife and husband was quite good and the accused persons had never put forth any demand and had not committed murder of the deceased, rather the deceased died as she fell down while she was ill. The trial court by placing implicit reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 testifying that the deceased was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.30,000/-and ultimately was killed, found all the appellants guilty. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that relationship in between the husband and wife was quite good and as such, question of committing dowry death of the deceased by the appellants does not arise and, therefore, whatever evidence has been laid on behalf of the prosecution of committing dowry death on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of money, that is completely false and, as a matter of fact, the deceased was ill and had become quite weak and, therefore, when she fell down, she sustained injury and died and this version gets support from the evidence of Doctor, who has opined that the injury which was upon the deceased could also be caused due to fall on the ground and under this situation, the trial court committed grave illegality in holding the appellants guilty for the charges. Learned counsel further submits that in any view of the matter, the case never fall within the realm of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had put forth demand of dowry, rather according to the witnesses, the husband had put forth demand of Rs.30,000/-for doing business and as such, this demand would never fall within the definition of ‘dowry demand’ and therefore, question of committing offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code does not arise. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2007) 9 SCC 721 ] . Heard learned counsel appearing for the State also. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2007) 9 SCC 721 ] . Heard learned counsel appearing for the State also. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that admittedly Sombari Mahatain got married to the appellant Haru Manato two years before the death of Sombari Mahatain which, according to the prosecution, took place on 31.10.2003. The prosecution in order to bring the charge home examined Jira Devi, mother of the deceased and Jyoti Mahato, father of the deceased as P.Ws.2 and 3 whereas P.W.1 Basudeo Mahato is the cousin and P.W.4 Banmali Mahato,is the brother of the deceased. As per the evidence of P.W.2, her daughter was married to Haru Mahato under Hindu rites and rituals and in the marriage Rs.48,000/-was given in cash apart from utensils, clothes and ornaments but her daughter was being subjected to cruelty as the husband and father-in-law of her daughter used to demand Rs.30,000/-more. She has testified that her son-in-law by coming to her place used to demand by holding threat that if it is not given, her daughter would be subjected to cruelty and, therefore, at some occasion Rs.2000-3000/-was given. She has also testified that 7-8 days before the occurrence, her daughter had come and had again stated about the demand of money. Similar is the statement of P.W.3, informant, father of the deceased, who has also deposed that whenever his daughter came to his place, she always told them that her husband put forth demand of money, though at several occasions he had given Rs.2000-3000/-. Of course, this witness has testified that his son-in-law used to demand Rs.30,000/-for doing business and that apart, this fact of demand for doing business has also been stated by P.W.1, Basudeo Mahato and under this situation, submission has been advanced that even if there was a demand, that was never related to or in connection with the marriage and as such, in terms of the definition of ‘Dowry’ defined under Dowry Prohibition Act, the said demand could never be termed as dowry and therefore, the case would never fall under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. In terms of the definition of the ‘dowry’ as defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act, any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties would come within the definition of the dowry. In the instant case, as it has been stated that the demand was made for the purpose of doing business, therefore, plea is being taken that it will not fall within the definition of dowry but on close scrutiny of the testimony particularly of P.W.2, who is none other than mother of the deceased, it appears that she has testified that in the marriage Rs.48,000/-in cash besides other articles had been given and in spite of that, she was being subjected to cruelty as her son-in-law and Samdhi used to demand Rs.30,000/-more. She has gone further to testify that at some occasion Rs.2000-3000/-had been given to her son-in-law. Of course, other witnesses, such as P.Ws 1 and 2 have testified that the demand was for the purpose of doing business but the testimonies of these witnesses with respect to demand of money for doing business is read in the context of the testimony given by P.W.2, as indicated above, it would mean that demand was in connection with the marriage but that was to be utilized for the purpose of doing business and under this situation, it can never be said that the demand would never fall within the definition of ‘dowry’. Thus, I do have no hesitation in holding that whatever demand was there, that was in connection with the marriage and certainly falls within the definition of dowry. So far ratio laid down in the decision referred to on behalf of the appellants is concerned, that has been laid down on the basis of facts of the case that there had been consistent evidence that demand was made on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure and in that context it was held that said demand cannot be in connection with the marriage and hence, will not fall within the definition of dowry. Coming to the other aspect of the matter, I do find that according to evidence of the Doctor, death occurred due to head injury which was caused by hard and blunt substance. Of course the Doctor has opined that kind of injury may be due to fall but at the same time, Doctor had also found injury over the neck which according to him, can never be caused due to fall and as such, any plea taken on behalf of the accused that the deceased died due to fall is not acceptable at all. Thus, I do find that all the ingredients which are essential to constitute offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are there as death of Sombari Mahatain was caused due to bodily injury, within seven years of the marriage and was subjected to cruelty/harassment by the accused persons on account of nonfulfillment of the dowry. Now the question does arise as to whether only the husband is responsible or other appellants are also responsible for causing dowry death ? It be noted that as per the evidence of P.W.1, it was the husband who used to put forth demand of Rs.30,000/-whereas P.W.2 has testified that her son-in-law and also Samdhi (father-in-law of the deceased) used to demand Rs.30,000/-but it appears that father-in-law of the deceased never put any demand directly from her as she has stated that her son-in-law whenever used to come to her place, he used to put forth demand of money. Similar is the testimony of P.W.3, who has testified that whenever his daughter used to come, she told them that she is being taunted by her husband who used to demand of money. Thus, it appears that there has been no consistent or convincing evidence that demand was being put by other accused persons than the husband of the deceased. On the other hand, witnesses are quite consistent that the husband used to put forth the demand. In this view of the matter, it would not be safe to hold that other appellants, namely, Chanchala Devi, Kunti Devi and Bhismadeo Mahato guilty for the offence either under section 304B or under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, they are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Hence, they are acquitted from the charges levelled against them and are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. So far the appellant Haru Mahato, husband of the deceased, is concerned, he has rightly been convicted under section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed for an offence under section 304B in the facts and circumstances quite appropriate. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him is hereby affirmed. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part.