Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 206 (PAT)

Ratneshwari Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-02-12

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2013
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.:–Both the above said Criminal Appeals have arisen out of judgment of conviction dated 05-03-2001 and order of sentence dated 07-03-2001 passed by Sri Ramjee Pandey, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 27/04 of 1998 by which and whereunder, all the above-said appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections-304B/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section-304B of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section-201 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently and, accordingly, a common judgment is being passed in both the above-said criminal appeals. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 4, namely, Krishna Devi gave her fardbeyan to Officer-in-charge of Chand Police Station on 20-06-1997 at about 3.00 p.m. at her home to this effect that in the noon of 20-06-1997, she heard noise that the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 was killing his wife and having heard the aforesaid noise, she went running to the house of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 and found that western door of the house was closed. She opened the door and saw that the wife of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 was lying on earth and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 was pressing her neck. She further noticed that appellants; Munna Singh, Surali Singh and Murali Singh were on her chest whereas; appellant Ratneshwari Singh and accused, Jhuna Devi were standing there and exhorting others to kill her at once. The wife of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 was crying. She asked the aforesaid persons as to what they were doing, on which, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001, abused her and gave threat to kill her and, thereafter, she came out and raised alarm. The aforesaid persons brought the wife of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 out from the house and FIR named accused, Jhuna Devi, was having a plastic tanker. The aforesaid persons brought the wife of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 out from the house and FIR named accused, Jhuna Devi, was having a plastic tanker. The aforesaid persons kept the wife of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 on a heap of paddy straw and, thereafter, sprinkled Kerosene oil and lit the fire in the heap of paddy straw. She claimed that wife of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 was killed by the aforesaid persons by putting pressure on her neck and chest and with a view to disappear the evidence, they set fire on her dead body. 3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of the P.W. 4, Chand police drew up a formal first Information Report (Ext. 5) and registered a case bearing Chand P.S. Case No. 46 of 1997 for an offence punishable under Sections-302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and one, Jhuna Devi. 4. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and co-accused, Jhuna Devi showing her absconder for the offence punishable under Sections-498A, 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 05-12-1997. It appears from the aforesaid order dated 05-12-1997 that warrant of arrest as well as processes u/S 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be issued against accused, Jhuna Devi but it is not clear as to whether her case was separated from the case of appellants or not. Moreover, the appellants were put on trial before the trial court. 5. Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2001 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections-304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 was charged for the offence punishable under Sections-304B of the Indian Penal Code. Besides, all the appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections-498A/34 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section-4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. To substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants, prosecution examined, altogether, eleven witnesses and also got exhibited signature of P.W. 2 on inquest report as Ext. 1, seizure list as Ext. 2, inquest report as Ext. 3, carbon copy of fardbeyan as Ext. 6. To substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants, prosecution examined, altogether, eleven witnesses and also got exhibited signature of P.W. 2 on inquest report as Ext. 1, seizure list as Ext. 2, inquest report as Ext. 3, carbon copy of fardbeyan as Ext. 4, formal FIR as Ext. 5, postmortem report as Ext. 6 and original Fardbeyan as Ext. 4/1. 7. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section-313 of the Cr.P.C. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence and the aforesaid witness proved formal FIR of Chand P.S. Case No. 43 of 1997 as Ext. A and Fardbeyan of the aforesaid case as Ext. B. The defence also got exhibited deposition of one Smt. Mansira Devi recorded in G.R. No. 659 of 1997 as Ext. C as well as Ration Card as Ext. D. 8. The learned trial court, having considered the materials available on the record, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above, basing his findings, particularly, on the depositions of P.Ws. 6, 7 & 8 as well as documentary evidences available on the record. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submitting that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, prosecution witness Nos. 1 to 5 were declared hostile and they did not support the prosecution case and admittedly, prosecution witness No. 6 and prosecution witness No. 7 are not eye witness of the alleged occurrence and, therefore, the learned trial court based his finding on the statement of hear-say witnesses. He further contended that the informant has not supported the prosecution version and almost all the witnesses stated that marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1988-89 and she died on 20-06-1997 and, therefore, it is evident that the deceased died much after 7 years of her marriage and the charge under Section-304B of the Indian Penal Code could not be established but in spite of that, the learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section-304B of the Indian Penal Code. He further contended that P.W. 2 has stated in his deposition that he went to police station and informed the police about the death of the deceased and having got information from P.W. 2, police reached on the place of occurrence and after that, police took signature of P.W. 4 on a plain paper and, therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid facts that first information regarding the alleged occurrence was given by P.W. 2 but the aforesaid statement of P.W. 2 has not been brought on record nor it has been proved by the prosecution and, therefore, fardbeyan of P.W. 4 could not have been treated as first information report of this case. He further submitted that almost all the eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence stated in their depositions that the deceased was a mentally derailed lady and, she herself, set fire on her body but learned trial court overlooked the aforesaid fact, particularly, in the circumstance, when the own aunt (Mausi) of deceased made the above-said statement on oath before the court. He further submitted that postmortem report has been proved by an advocate clerk and, therefore, the appellants could not get any opportunity to challenge the veracity of contents of the postmortem report and besides it, the I.O. of the case has not been examined and non-examination of the I.O. has caused serious prejudice to the defence. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence arguing that P.Ws.- 6, 7 & 8 have, specifically, stated that the deceased was married in the year, 1991 with the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 and after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry and, subsequently, she was done to death. He further submitted that apart from this, the postmortem report of the deceased reveals that cause of her death was cardio respiratory failure and asphyxia due to strangulation and after death, the dead body was burnt and, therefore, the aforesaid fact clearly goes to show that the death of the deceased was unnatural. He further submitted that apart from this, the postmortem report of the deceased reveals that cause of her death was cardio respiratory failure and asphyxia due to strangulation and after death, the dead body was burnt and, therefore, the aforesaid fact clearly goes to show that the death of the deceased was unnatural. He further submitted that the prosecution has succeeded to prove all the ingredients of Section-304B of the Indian Penal Code as well as 201 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the above-said offences. 11. As I have already stated that altogether 11 prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of his case and, out of whom; P.Ws. 1 to 5 have been declared hostile. P.W. 6 Dinesh Singh is full brother whereas; P.W. 7 is cousin brother of the deceased. Similarly, P.W. 8 is father of the deceased. P.W. 9 Ramakant Tiwary is an advocate clerk and this witness proved seizure list as Ext. 2, inquest report as Ext. 3, Fardbeyan of P.W. 4 as Ext. 4, formal FIR as Ext. 5. P.W. 10 Ali Waris Khan is also a formal witness and an advocate clerk and this witness has proved postmortem report as Ext. 6 as the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem on the corpus of the deceased, had already been murdered. P.W. 11 is a Munshi and this witness has proved original fardbeyan of P.W. 4 as Ext. 4/1. 12. Now let us first examine the depositions of those prosecution witnesses who have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 13. P.W. 1 Nanhku Singh is a co-villager of the appellants and this witness stated that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001. This witness stated that he saw the dead body of deceased on the heap of paddy straw and the dead body was burning when he reached on the place of occurrence. This witness further stated that police came there and took his signature on a plain paper. This witness stated that he saw the dead body of deceased on the heap of paddy straw and the dead body was burning when he reached on the place of occurrence. This witness further stated that police came there and took his signature on a plain paper. This witness has been declared hostile and his attention was drawn by the prosecution towards his statement recorded by the I.O. in course of investigation u/S 161 of the Cr.P.C. On being cross-examined by the defence, he stated that marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the year, 1988 and the deceased was mentally derailed lady and she herself set fire on her body on the alleged date of occurrence. 14. P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar Singh is also a co-villager of the appellants and this witness stated that the deceased had herself set fire on her body. This witness has also been declared hostile and he proved his signature on inquest report as Ext. 1. This witness, too, stated on being cross-examined by the defence that marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the year, 1988. This witness also stated that after the occurrence, he went Chand Police Station and also sent a person to inform the father of the deceased. He further stated that he narrated the entire incident to police and after that, police came to his village alongwith him. He further stated that police took thumb impression of P.W. 4 on a plain paper. 15. P.W. 3 Sheopujan Singh is husband of P.W. 4. He stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was not present in his village and, therefore, he could not say as to how the deceased was caught in fire. This witness stated that marriage of the deceased had taken place ten years ago. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 16. P.W. 4 Krishna Devi is the informant of this case. She stated that she could not say as to how the deceased died and she did not lodge any case in respect of death of the deceased. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 16. P.W. 4 Krishna Devi is the informant of this case. She stated that she could not say as to how the deceased died and she did not lodge any case in respect of death of the deceased. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution and her attention was drawn towards her previous statement recorded by the police and on being cross-examined by the prosecution, she stated at paragraph-3 of her cross examination that the marriage of deceased was solemnized six years ago but again, she stated that the marriage of deceased was solemnized nine years ago. Almost similar statement has been made by P.W. 5 Basmati Devi who stated that the deceased died at her in laws’ house but as to how she died, she does not know. 17. On perusal of the depositions of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it would be clear that the deceased died at her in-laws’ house and her death was not natural. P.W. 1 Nanhku Singh had admitted in his examination-in-chief that when he went near the house of the appellants, he saw the dead body of deceased burning on the heap of paddy straw. 18. As I have already stated that P.W. 6 Dinesh Singh is full brother of the deceased. This witness stated that marriage of the deceased had taken place with the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 in the year, 1991 and the Gauna of deceased was performed in the year, 1993 and after Gauna, the deceased went to her in-laws’ house. He further stated that he alongwith P.W. 7 went to in laws’ house of the deceased to meet her and the deceased disclosed that appellants and accused, Jhuna Devi were demanding Television and gold chain in dowry and she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of non-fulfillment of aforesaid demand. He further stated that he talked the in-laws of deceased in respect of the aforesaid illegal demand and torture but in laws of the deceased repeated their demand and then, he as well as P.W. 7 returned to their home and narrated the aforesaid fact to their other family members. He further stated that he talked the in-laws of deceased in respect of the aforesaid illegal demand and torture but in laws of the deceased repeated their demand and then, he as well as P.W. 7 returned to their home and narrated the aforesaid fact to their other family members. This witness further stated that again after ten days, he along with P.W. 7 went to the house of appellants and met the deceased who with fear, disclosed that her in-laws had been making demand of T.V. and chain and for that, they used to assault her. This witness further stated that after death of his mother, P.W. 7 went to the house of appellants to take back deceased but in-laws of deceased stated that they would permit the deceased to go to her parental house, if, their demand of colour T.V. and chain is fulfilled but on request of P.W. 7, they permitted the deceased to go to her parental home. This witness again stated that after SHRADH ceremony of his mother, the deceased again went to her in laws house. This witness stated that 17 months prior to his date of evidence, Sheopujan Singh (P.W. 3) and Mohan Singh came at his village and informed him about the death of deceased, Seema Devi. They also disclosed that in laws of Seema Devi having killed the deceased, threw her dead body and having got the aforesaid information, he along with P.W. 7 and one Harishankar Dubey, went to Bhadura village and came to know that appellants having committed murder of Seema Devi put her on heap of paddy straw and set fire on her body. On being cross examined by the defence, this witness has admitted that he had not seen any person committing the murder of deceased. He further admitted that at the time of marriage, his sister had not gone to her in-laws house and after solemnization of Gauna, when she went to her in laws house, she remained there for three to four years and after that, when she came to his home, she remained for a month. He further stated that again the deceased came to his home after death of his mother. He further stated that when at the time of death of his mother, deceased came to his home, she remained there only for 13 days. He further stated that again the deceased came to his home after death of his mother. He further stated that when at the time of death of his mother, deceased came to his home, she remained there only for 13 days. He further stated that Gauna of deceased was performed after three years of her marriage. He also admitted at paragraph-8 of his cross examination that he had seen the dead body of deceased in Bhabua Hospital. He also admitted that he participated in cremation of dead body of the deceased. At paragraph-8 of his cross examination, he admitted that at the time of her marriage, the deceased was aged about 16 years. At paragraph-11 of his cross-examination, this witness stated that appellants, Surali Singh and Murali Singh are separate from the rest appellants though in same breath, he stated that all the appellants are joint in their business. The defence suggested him that he had disclosed wrong year of marriage of his sister but this witness denied the above-said suggestion of the defence. 19. P.W. 7 Dular Singh is cousin brother of the deceased. This witness, too, stated that the marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1991 with appellant, Gulab Singh and after three years of marriage, her Gauna was solemnized and thereafter, deceased went to her in laws house. He further stated that he used to visit in laws house of the deceased and had talked with the deceased. He further stated that deceased used to state that appellants were making demand of chain and colour T.V. in dowry and they used to give threat to her. This witness stated that he told the police that he was not in a position to meet the aforesaid demand but after that, the appellants started creating difficulty in sending the deceased to her parental home. He further stated that after 5-6 months, he had gone to take Bidai of the deceased and when deceased came to her parental home, she disclosed above said demand to her family members. He further stated that again after 8-10 months, in laws of the deceased took away the deceased and at that time, again they made above said demand. He further stated that after 5-6 months, he had gone to take Bidai of the deceased and when deceased came to her parental home, she disclosed above said demand to her family members. He further stated that again after 8-10 months, in laws of the deceased took away the deceased and at that time, again they made above said demand. He further stated that after one or two months of the aforesaid Bidai, the in laws of the deceased started assaulting her for fulfillment of the aforesaid demand and after that, he as well as P.W. 6 went to the house of the appellants and pacified the matter. He further stated that Sheopujan Singh (P.W.3) came and informed that the appellants committed murder of deceased and burnt her dead body outside their house. He further stated that having got aforesaid information, he alongwith P.W. 6 and other persons went to the village of appellants and found that the house of father-in-law of the deceased was locked. He further stated that he met Krishnavati Devi (P.W.4), who disclosed that appellants committed murder of deceased in front of house and after that, they were burning her dead body on heap of paddy straw. He further stated that Krishnavati also disclosed the name of appellants and after that, he along with others, came to police station. He further stated that all the appellants are related with each others and they are joint. At paragraph- 8 of his cross-examination, he stated that after marriage of deceased, he had gone to in laws house of deceased on 3-4 times and for the first time, he went to the in laws house of the deceased after 15-20 days of Gauna of the deceased and again, he visited the in laws house of the deceased after one month of his first visit. He further stated that after three months of his second visit, he visited the in laws house of the deceased for the third time and his last visit to the house of appellants, was after death of the deceased. He also admitted that the deceased was 7-8 year younger to him and at the time of her death; she was aged about 17-18 years. He further stated that his marriage was solemnized 14-15 years ago. He also admitted that the deceased was 7-8 year younger to him and at the time of her death; she was aged about 17-18 years. He further stated that his marriage was solemnized 14-15 years ago. He further stated that having got information of death of the deceased, he reached village-Bhadura at about 7.00-8.00 p.m. and on the same day, he went to police station where he gave his statement. 20. P.W.8 is father of the deceased. This witness also stated that marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1991 and after marriage, appellant, Muneshwari Singh and Gulab Singh demanded Sikri and T.V. in dowry. He further stated that his daughter went to her in-laws house after marriage and thereafter, she came back to his home and told that her in laws used to kill her. He further stated that Mohan Singh and Sheopujan Singh (P.W.3) gave information that his daughter was killed and her dead body was burnt by her in-laws and having got aforesaid information, his son (P.W.6) and Dular Singh (P.W.7) went to village Bhadura. On being cross-examined by the defence, This witness admitted at paragraph- 3 of his cross-examination that marriage of deceased was solemnized after two years of solemnization of marriage of P.W.7. He further stated that his brother namely, Heera Singh died two years ago from the date of his evidence and his wife died after one month of the death of his brother Heera Singh. He further stated that his daughter, Seema Devi came to his home to attend the SHRADH ceremony of his wife. He further admitted at paragraph-4 of his cross-examination that he never went to the in-laws house of the deceased nor he met the appellants after marriage of deceased. He further stated that he had not given any information to police or to court against the above-said demand of appellants. He further admitted that he had not made any statement before the police. 21. P.W.9 Ramakant Dubey is a formal witness who has proved seizure list as Ext 2, inquest report as Ext-3, fardbeyan as Ext-4, formal FIR as Ext-5 and similarly, P.W. 10 Ali Waris Khan is also a formal witness, who had proved postmortem of the deceased as Ext 6 and stated that Dr. Captain Vijay Nath Singh who had conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, was dead. 22. Captain Vijay Nath Singh who had conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, was dead. 22. P.W.11 Kamta Singh is also a formal witness, who has proved original fardbeyan of P.W.4 as Ext 4/1. 23. Now in the light of above said evidence of the prosecution, it has to be seen as to whether prosecution succeeded to prove all the ingredients of Section-304B Indian Penal Code or not because to attract the provision of Section-113(b) of the Evidence Act, all the ingredients of Section-304B of the IPC, must be proved by the prosecution and thereafter, burden shifts upon the appellants to prove their innocence. 24. As I have already stated that even by the testimony of prosecution witness No. 1 to 5, it is established that the death of deceased was unnatural. Apart from this, from Ext 6 (postmortem report of the deceased), I find that burn injuries were found on the person of the deceased and the aforesaid burn injuries were found postmortem in nature, caused by heat and furthermore, the injury found on the neck of the deceased, was ante mortem in nature as a result of strangulation and furthermore, Ext 6 reveals that death was due to cardio respiratory failure and asphyxia due to strangulation and therefore, Ext 6 also supports this fact that the death of the deceased was unnatural. Although the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination on the corpus of the deceased, was not examined by the prosecution, but P.W.10 specifically, stated in his statement that the doctor, who had conducted postmortem was murdered and the aforesaid witness also stated that he was acquainted with his writing. Moreover, the defence did not challenge the death of the aforesaid doctor and therefore, aforesaid postmortem report is admissible in the evidence and prosecution has succeeded to prove this fact that the death of deceased was other than normal circumstances rather she was strangulated to death and after her death; her dead body was put on fire. 25. Now it has to be seen as to whether prosecution succeeded to prove this fact that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage or not. 26. On this point, P.W.1 Nanhku Singh stated that deceased died 12-14 months ago from the date of his statement. 25. Now it has to be seen as to whether prosecution succeeded to prove this fact that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage or not. 26. On this point, P.W.1 Nanhku Singh stated that deceased died 12-14 months ago from the date of his statement. The statement of this witness was recorded on 25-08-1998 and therefore, from the statement of this witness, it is clear that the deceased died in the year, 1997. P.W.2 stated that deceased died one and half to two years ago from the date of his statement. The statement of this witness was recorded on 13-11-1998, so, according to this witness, deceased died sometime in the year, 1997. P.W. 3 stated that deceased died one and half years ago from the date of his evidence and statement of this witness was recorded on 13-11-1998. So, according to this witness, deceased died sometime in the year, 1997. Almost similar statement has been made by P.W.4 and according to statement of this witness, the deceased died sometime in the year, 1997. P.W.5 stated that deceased died two and half years ago from the date of her evidence. The statement of this witness was recorded on 17-11-1998, so, according to this witness, deceased died in the year, 1996. P.W.6 stated that deceased died 17 months ago from the date of his evidence. The statement of this witness was recorded on 02-12-1998 and according to this witness, the deceased died in the year, 1997. P.W. 7 stated that deceased died 21-22 months ago from the date of his statement. The statement of this witness was recorded on 17-04-1999 and so, according to this witness, deceased died in the year, 1997. P.W.8 stated that his daughter died three years ago from the date of his evidence. The statement of this witness was recorded on 03-04-2000 and so, according to this witness, deceased died sometime in the year, 1997. Ext 4/1 fardbeyan of P.W.4 reveals that deceased died on 20-06-1997. Moreover, the date of death of the deceased is not in dispute and accordingly, I find that the deceased died on 20-06-1997. 27. Now the question arises as to when marriage of deceased was solemnized. On this point, P.W. 1 has stated in his cross examination that marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1988. Moreover, the date of death of the deceased is not in dispute and accordingly, I find that the deceased died on 20-06-1997. 27. Now the question arises as to when marriage of deceased was solemnized. On this point, P.W. 1 has stated in his cross examination that marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1988. P.W.2 also stated in his cross examination that marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1988. P.W.3 also made similar statement whereas; P.W.4 stated in his cross examination that marriage of deceased had taken place six years ago though again, she stated that marriage of deceased had taken place nine years ago from the date of her statement. Admittedly, her statement was recorded on 17-11-1998 and therefore, according to P.W. 4, marriage of deceased was solemnized either in the year, 1991 or 1989. P.W.5 stated that marriage of deceased had taken place ten and half years ago from the date of her statement. Admittedly, the statement of this witness was recorded on 17-11-1998 and so, according to this witness, the marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1988. 28. As I have already stated that all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses No. 1 to 5 were declared hostile and year of marriage of the deceased came in depositions of the aforesaid witness on being cross-examined by the defence. 29. P.W.6 stated that marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1991 and her Gauna was solemnized in the year 1993. Similar statement has been made by P.W.7 who stated that marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1991 and her Gauna was solemnized in the year 1994. P.W.8 also stated that marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1991. 30. On perusal of the aforesaid materials, I find that P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 stated that the marriage of deceased had taken place in the year, 1988 whereas; P.W. 6 & P.W. 8 stated that marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1991 and her Gauna was solemnized in the year 1993. The learned trial court dealt with aforesaid point at paragraph-27 of the impugned judgment and came to this conclusion that the marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1991 on the ground that appellant Murali Singh admitted in his statement recorded u/S 313 of the Cr. The learned trial court dealt with aforesaid point at paragraph-27 of the impugned judgment and came to this conclusion that the marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1991 on the ground that appellant Murali Singh admitted in his statement recorded u/S 313 of the Cr. P.C. that the marriage of deceased was performed in the year, 1991. Apart from this, the learned trial court came to the above-stated conclusion on the ground that appellants did not give any suggestion to the P.W. 6, P.W.7 and P.W. 8 that the marriage of deceased was performed in the year, 1988 and, furthermore, on the ground that appellants did not adduce any evidence to show this fact that the marriage of the deceased had taken place in the year, 1988 and only on the basis of mathematical calculation, the appellant tried to show that the marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1988. 31. As I have already discussed that P.W. 8 has stated at paragraph-3 of his cross-examination that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized after two years of marriage of P.W. 7. P.W.7 has stated suo motu at paragraph-9 of his cross-examination that his marriage had taken place 14-15 years ago from the date of his evidence. The statement of this witness was recorded on 17-04-1999 and, therefore, according to statement of P.W. 7, his marriage was solemnized in the year, 1984-85 and if the marriage of P.W. 7 was solemnized in the year, 1984-85, then according to statement of P.W. 8, the marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1986-87. Furthermore, Ext “D” the Ration Card reveals that on 22-12-1992, the age of deceased, Seema Devi was entered in Ration Card as 20 years and in Ext 6, her age has been entered as 24 years, whereas; in inquest report (Ext 3) her age was entered to be 24 years. Admittedly, Ext 3 & Ext 6 were prepared in the year, 1997. So even if, the entries in Ext 3 & Ext 4 were opinion of I.O. and doctor, then also, the aforesaid opinion corroborates Ext D. Furthermore, P.W.7 at paragraph-8 in his cross-examination stated that the deceased was 7-8 years younger to him. Admittedly, Ext 3 & Ext 6 were prepared in the year, 1997. So even if, the entries in Ext 3 & Ext 4 were opinion of I.O. and doctor, then also, the aforesaid opinion corroborates Ext D. Furthermore, P.W.7 at paragraph-8 in his cross-examination stated that the deceased was 7-8 years younger to him. The statement of this witness was recorded on 17-04-1999 and at the time of his statement, this witness was found by the court aged about 35 years though he disclosed his age as 33 years. So, the aforesaid statement of this witness reveals that in the year, 1997, the deceased was aged about between 24-25 years. P.W.6 stated at paragraph-8 of his cross examination that marriage of deceased was solemnized at the age of 16 years. So, if, the statement of P.W. 6, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 are taken together, it is clear that the marriage of deceased was solemnized much prior to 1991 because according to inquest report as well as postmortem report, she was found aged about 24 years and according to P.W. 6 her marriage was solemnized at the age of 16 years, so, the aforesaid fact shows that the deceased died after 8-9 years of her marriage and therefore, it is established that the deceased died much beyond the seven years of her marriage. Although learned trial court overlooked the aforesaid statement of P.W. 6, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 only on the ground that it was simply a mathematical calculation but I am of the opinion that the aforesaid statement of P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 could not have been discarded only on the above-said ground. So far as the admission of appellant Murali Singh in his statement recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C. is concerned, P.W. 6 has admitted in his cross examination that the aforesaid appellant Murali Singh was separate from the appellant Gulab Singh, so, even if, there is admission of appellant, Murali Singh in his statement recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C. to this effect that the marriage of deceased was solemnized in the year, 1991, then also, the aforesaid demand does not make any difference and therefore, I find and hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove this fact that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage. 32. 32. Now it has to be seen as to whether deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death on account of non-fulfillment of illegal demand of dowry or not. On the aforesaid point, only material witnesses are; P.W. 6, P.W.7 & P.W. 8 who are, admittedly, brother, cousin brother and father of the deceased respectively. 33. P.W.6 stated that after Gauna, his sister started residing at her in laws house and he alongwith P.W.7 went to the in laws house of the deceased and his sister disclosed that appellants, Gulab Singh, Muna Singh, Surali Singh, Murali Singh, Ratneshwari Singh and accused, Jhuna Devi used to make demand of gold chain and TV and also used to assault her on account of non-fulfillment of aforesaid demand. This witness further stated that he talked with the appellants on the aforesaid point and they made demand of TV and Sikri. He further stated that he and P.W.7 returned to their home and talked with other family members and after ten days, they again went to the in laws house of the deceased and thereafter, deceased again disclosed the factum of aforesaid demand and assault. This witness further admitted that after death of his mother, when P.W.7 went to take Bidai of deceased, her in laws demanded colour TV and gold chain from P.W.7. This witness has nowhere stated in his deposition that when his sister came to his home to attend the SHRADH ceremony of her mother, she disclosed this fact that her in laws were demanding colour TV and gold chain in dowry and therefore, from perusal of the statement of this witness, it appears that whatever demand was made by in laws of the deceased, the same was made at their home and not at the house of P.W.6. This witness further admitted at paragraph-5 of his cross examination that the deceased was first time went to her Sasural after solemnization of her Gauna and she remained at her Sasural for 3-4 years and when she returned to her parental home, for the first time, she remained stayed at her parental home for one month only. She again came to her parental home after death of her mother and therefore, the statement of this witness reveals that deceased visited to her parental home twice after solemnization of her Gauna. She again came to her parental home after death of her mother and therefore, the statement of this witness reveals that deceased visited to her parental home twice after solemnization of her Gauna. P.W.8 the father of the deceased stated that after marriage, the deceased went to her in laws house and when she came to his home, she disclosed that her in laws used to give threat to assault and kill her. Therefore, it is explicit clear from the statement of P.W.6 that whatever demand was made by the in laws of deceased, the same were made by them from P.W.6 and P.W.7 because it is explicit from the statement of P.W.8 that after solemnization of marriage of deceased, he never went to in laws house of deceased. Although P.W. 8 has stated that Mukeshwari Singh and Gulabi Singh had demanded T.V. and Sikri in dowry but it is not clear from the statement of P.W.8 as to when the appellant, Muneshwari Singh and Gulab Singh demanded T.V. and Sikri from him because according to his statement itself, deceased had only disclosed about her torturing to this witness and she has not whispered about the demand of dowry. 34. P.W.7 Dular Singh stated that deceased went to her in laws house after solemnization of her Gauna and when he visited the in laws house of deceased, the deceased disclosed that appellants were making demand of Sikri and colour T.V. and also giving threatening to her. He further admitted at paragraph-2 of his examination-in-chief that after 5-6 months of the Gauna, he took the deceased to her parental home and at that time, she disclosed the factum of demand of dowry to her other family members. Therefore, the statement of this witness shows that P.W.8 came to know about the factum of torturing after 5-6 months of Gauna of deceased and according to prosecution case itself, the Gauna of the deceased was solemnized in the year, 1993 and, therefore, according to statement of P.W.6, deceased disclosed about the demand of dowry as well as her torturing to her other family members sometime in the year, 1993 or 1994. Furthermore, P.W.7 stated at paragraph-8 of his cross-examination that for the first time, he visited the house of in laws of the deceased after 15-20 days of Gauna of the deceased and next time, he visited in laws house of the deceased after one month of his first visit and again, third time he visited the in laws house of the deceased after 2-3 months of his second visit and lastly, he visited the in laws house of the deceased after death of the deceased and, therefore the aforesaid statement of P.W.7 shows that his three visits to the in laws house of the deceased were within one year of Gauna of the deceased and this witness, nowhere, stated in his deposition that he visited the in laws house of deceased after the death of mother of the deceased and at that time, the appellants had made demand of dowry from him and, therefore, the statement of P.W.6 who stated that after death of mother of deceased, P.W.7 had gone to take Bidai of deceased and at that time, the appellants had made illegal demand, becomes doubtful. Apart from this, it is clear from statement of P.W. 7 that whatever demand was made by the appellants, the same was made within one year of Gauna of the deceased and according to prosecution case itself, Gauna of the deceased was solemnized in the year 1993, so, even if, the statement of P.W.7 is assumed to be true, then also, it is clear that after 1994, no demand was made by the appellants nor the deceased was subjected to cruelty and furthermore, it is also clear from the deposition of P.W.7 that P.W.6 and P.W.7 never visited to the in laws house of deceased after 1994 except after death of the deceased and therefore, there is nothing on the record to show this fact that between 1994 to 1997, any demand was made by the appellants or they subjected the deceased to cruelty and therefore, prosecution could not succeed to prove this fact that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for illegal demand soon before her death. No doubt, according to Ext 6, the death of the deceased was unnatural and cause of her death, was strangulation but there is nothing on the record to show this fact as to how deceased died. 35. No doubt, according to Ext 6, the death of the deceased was unnatural and cause of her death, was strangulation but there is nothing on the record to show this fact as to how deceased died. 35. Admittedly, before attracting the presumption of dowry death under Section-113(b) of Evidence Act, the prosecution has to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death but in the present case, prosecution miserably failed to prove this fact that deceased died within 7 years of her marriage and, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants soon before her death in connection with demand for dowry and therefore, in my view, Section-113(b) of the Evidence Act would not apply in this case and the presumption against the appellants under the aforesaid section would not be drawn in the instant case. 36. P.W.6 has admitted in his cross examination that appellants, Murali Singh and Surali Singh are separate from the rest appellants though their business is joint but aforesaid admission of P.W.6 indicates that appellants Murali Singh and Surali Singh had no interest to make any demand of dowry from the wife of appellant Gulab Singh and, therefore even if, they are relative of the appellant Gulab singh, then also it is not probable that they would make demand of dowry from the deceased as well as her natal people. 37. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that prosecution could not succeed to prove all ingredients of Section-304B of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, in my view, the learned trial court committed an error in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section-304 B of the Indian Penal Code. 38. P.W.6 has admitted in his examination-in-chief that having got information in respect of death of deceased, when he reached in the village of the appellants, he did not find dead body of the deceased and he saw the dead body of the deceased on the next day in Bhabua hospital. P.W.7 also stated that having got information of death of the deceased, he alongwith P.W 6 and others went at the village of the appellants. P.W.7 also stated that having got information of death of the deceased, he alongwith P.W 6 and others went at the village of the appellants. So, admittedly, P.W.6 and P.W.7 have not seen as to who had thrown the dead body of deceased Seema Devi, on heap of paddy straw and after that, set fire on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.8 has admitted that he had not gone to the village of appellants after death of his daughter and, therefore, he had also not seen who had set fire on the dead body of deceased. 39. P.W.1 Nanhku Singh has also not stated this fact who had thrown dead body of deceased on the heap of paddy straw and he simply stated that when he reached there, he found that the dead body of the deceased was burning. Though on being cross examined by the defence, he stated that when he reached there, he saw that the deceased was standing on the heap of paddy straw and the heap of paddy straw was burning. P.W.2 stated that she; herself committed suicide as she was mentally unbalanced. P.W.3 and P.W.4 also stated that deceased was mentally unbalanced. P.W.5 stated that she saw that the dead body of deceased was burning on the heap of paddy straw. Therefore, from perusal of the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is explicit clear that none of the prosecution witnesses, stated that it were appellants who set fire on the dead body of the deceased or threw the dead body of the deceased on heap of paddy straw and, therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution could not succeed to prove the offence of Section-201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and therefore, the appellants could not have been convicted for the above said offence. 40. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has committed error in convicting the appellants for the offences under Sections-304B & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and these appeals are liable to be allowed. 41. Accordingly, both the above said appeals are allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order are, hereby, set aside. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges. 42. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.