JUDGMENT : (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Above named sole appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th and 20th September, 1990 passed in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 1987 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 302, 304B and 328 of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. For the offence under section 302 IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life whereas for the offence under section 304 B IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and for the offence under section 328 IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Munni Kumari daughter of the informant (PW 6) Kapildeo Jha was married with Bimal Kant Mishra-appellant merely seven weeks (25th May, 1986) prior to the occurrence. The couple started residing in the house of the informant but the informant’s daughter used to tell that she was being assaulted in the night and demand of Rs. 15,000/- and one scooter was made. The husband used to threat her that she would be poisoned to death. The informant used to pacify on the ground of his helplessness and poverty. On 19.7.1986 at about 8.00 AM the informant had been to his senior advocate Krishnakant Jha (PW 17), his unwell son aged five years at that time was sitting with his mother namely, the wife of the informant. At about 10.00 AM the informant’s wife felt that some altercation is going on inside the room between the informant’s daughter and his husband. When informant’s wife went to open the door and shouted for opening it, Bimal Kant Mishra namely, the accused opened the door and speeded through bicycle. As soon as the informant’s wife entered inside the room, then she found her daughter dead and foul smell was coming out from her mouth. Informant’s wife started crying and sent her another minor son aged 7-8 years for calling the informant and informed him about the death of Munni Kumari. The informant suspected that his daughter has been done away. The written statement (Ext. Informant’s wife started crying and sent her another minor son aged 7-8 years for calling the informant and informed him about the death of Munni Kumari. The informant suspected that his daughter has been done away. The written statement (Ext. 2) resulted into formal FIR (Ext. 15) of Sadar Darbhanga P.S. Case No. 123 of 1986 under sections 302, 328 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In course of investigation inquest report (Ext. 3) was prepared, post mortem report (Ext.4) was procured, sanction for prosecution (Ext. 9) for offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was also obtained. The viscera was sent for chemical examination and the report ((Ext. 19) was received. Place of occurrence was investigated into and after investigation chargesheet was submitted and accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under sections 302, 304B, 328 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was explained to the appellant to which he pleaded innocence and preferred to face trial. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Kusheshwar Mandal, PW 2 Mod Narain Jha, PW 3 Bhagya Narain Jha, PW 4 Ashok Kumar Srivastava, PW 5 Dr. Chandra Mohan Jha, PW 6 Kapil Deo Jha, PW 7 Babu Saheb Jha, PW 8 Ram Nandan Jha, PW 9 Chandra Kant Jha, PW 10 Ratan Kumar Jha, PW 11 Rajeev Kumar Mishra, PW 12 Baleshwar Mishra, PW 13 Ganesh Kumar Jha, PW 14 Vinod Kumar, PW 15 Sewa Nand Singh, PW 16 Nirmala Devi, PW 17 Krishna Kant Jha, PW 18 Vishwanath Jha, PW 19 Rameshwar Tiwari, PW 20 Braj Bhushan Jha, PW 21 Bechan Kumar, PW 22 Md. Sadirruddin Ansari, PW 23 Singheshwar Thakur, PW 24 Sakaldeep Rai, PW 25 Chadndra Prakash Taneza and PW 26 Binay Kumar Jha. 4. One defence witness Mahadeo Sahu was examined on behalf of the defence. 5. PW 1, a formal witness, has proved the writing of Kapildeo Jha (Ext. 1). He is an advocate clerk. PW 2, another advocate clerk, has proved the writing of written report (Ext. 2) which was in the writing of Krishna Kant Jha, Advocate. PW 3, an Assistant of Darbhanga Collectorate, has proved the prosecution sanction report (Ext. 9) which was bearing the signature of the District Magistrate. 1). He is an advocate clerk. PW 2, another advocate clerk, has proved the writing of written report (Ext. 2) which was in the writing of Krishna Kant Jha, Advocate. PW 3, an Assistant of Darbhanga Collectorate, has proved the prosecution sanction report (Ext. 9) which was bearing the signature of the District Magistrate. PW 15 has proved the attachment report (Ext. 10), compliance report (Ext. 11) and another compliance report (Ext. 11/1). PW 19 has proved the writing of application (Ext. 3) which was under the writing of Sakaldeep Rai the Officer Incharge of the Police Station. PW 21 has proved the writing of Dr. S. Nath, Civil Surgeon (Ext. 1/7), whereas, PW 22 has proved the typing containing initial of Sri T. Jha, Advocate (Ext. 1/8), two hazries (Ext. 1/8 and 1/9) and three applications (Ext. 1/10, 1/11 and 1/12), PW 23 has proved the writing of Brij Nath Jha (Ext. 14 and 14/1) and writing of Ramdeo Jha an advocate clerk of the complaint (Ext. 1/13), whereas, PW 26 has proved the signature of Sri Malikh Khan, Advocate (Ext. 1/14, 1/15 and 1/16). 6. DW 1 the Crime Reader of S.P., Darbhanga has proved the impressions over the four carbon copy of the case diary (Ext. B, B/1, B/2 and B/3). 7. PW 16 is the wife of the informant (PW 6) and PW 24 is the Investigating officer. PW 15 is the doctor who held the autopsy upon the dead body of Munni Kumari. 8. The informant’s wife was the person who was present in the house and the informant knew about the occurrence after his minor son went and called him. The evidence of the informant’s wife is being discussed first. 9. She has deposed that Munni Kumari was her eldest daughter and was married a quarter to two months earlier with Bimal Kant Mishra. Her daughter used to tell her that the appellant was demanding Rs. 15,000/- and a scooter. He was also threatening that she would be killed in case of demand was not met. She used to complain regarding her assault. The demand was by way of dowry. Her husband expressed his helplessness and promised to satisfy the demand after his economic condition improves. On the date of occurrence, her husband had been to the house of his senior Krishna Kanth Babu (PW 17). She used to complain regarding her assault. The demand was by way of dowry. Her husband expressed his helplessness and promised to satisfy the demand after his economic condition improves. On the date of occurrence, her husband had been to the house of his senior Krishna Kanth Babu (PW 17). Her daughter Munni Kumari and the accused were inside the room. Both of them used to get up at 9.30 AM. She heard some noise of snatching inside the room of Munni Kumari. The accused was asking her to drink but Munni was refusing. It was the time when her son was going to school. After hearing the sound coming out from the house, she knocked the door of Munni. The door was not immediately opened. After some times the door was opened and PW 16 saw Bimal Kant Mishra carrying something wrapped with a newspaper and proceeding through his cycle. Thereafter, PW 16 went towards the room and saw Munni Kumari lying upon the cot. Her face was covered. She was told to wake up but she did not respond, thereafter, PW 16 picked up her cloth and noticed some marks of violence upon her chick and throat. She started crying. Munni Kumari opened her eye suddenly and told that she was done away by Mishrajee. Mishrajee in common connotation was the name of the appellant. Foul smell was coming out of the mouth. PW 16 wanted to take away Munni Kumari towards outer side but she fell down on the cot. PW 16 told her son to rush and call his father from the house of Krishna Kant Babu. Ganesh (minor son) (PW 13) and Masterjee (PW 12) also went to Krishna Kant Babu. Her husband returned after some times. He was told about the occurrence. Immediately Dr. B. B. Jha of Homeopath was called but the doctor told that Munni is no more. She in her cross-examination has stated that her father was post graduate and during investigation she has told the entire occurrence to the Investigating officer. She has also told that the accused has killed his wife. 10. Informant PW 6 has stated that while he was at the residence of his senior, then he knew about the occurrence. At the time of marriage of his daughter no cash amount was promised. She has also told that the accused has killed his wife. 10. Informant PW 6 has stated that while he was at the residence of his senior, then he knew about the occurrence. At the time of marriage of his daughter no cash amount was promised. The marriage was performed on 25.5.1986 in which 31 persons have come as Barati. The marriage was performed as a normal marriage but after a quarter to two months, when the informant’s daughter was sleeping with the appellant in the night, she was done away. The victim’s husband used to demand Rs. 15,000/- and one scooter by way of dowry but the informant used to take plea of his incapability and poor economic condition. He also used to assure that as soon as his financial condition improves, he would do his best. He has received information and when he came, then he saw his wife weeping and told that she has been done away by her husband who has escaped through his bicycle. Bad smell was coming from the mouth. The informant has noticed some marks of violence on her face. The informant’s daughter was of healthy body and has no illness in the night in which she slept and died. The dead body was later on taken by the Police. Subsequently one protest petition was filed. The informant has stated that it was the ideal marriage in which there was no demand of dowry. 11. PW 3 is a neighbour of the informant and he has stated that after hearing about the occurrence, he came to the residence of the informant and saw a mob and dead body of Munni Kumari. He is closely related to the informant as he is son-in-law of the informant’s brother. PW 4 is the witness of inquest report. PW 7 is neighbour. He is the resident of the locality of the informant. He has stated that informant was residing in that area since about a decade and he was residing as a tenant. He has stated that on the date of occurrence, he saw accused proceeding through the bicycle and at that time he was carrying some article wrapped in paper. His statement was taken by the Police. He has stated that the informant used to tell about the demand made by the accused prior to the occurrence. PWs 8 and 9 have seen the accused going. His statement was taken by the Police. He has stated that the informant used to tell about the demand made by the accused prior to the occurrence. PWs 8 and 9 have seen the accused going. They are hearsay witness. PW 10 is the author of the written report. PW 12 was a peon but was residing with the informant and he went and informed the informant thereafter, he went to his duty. PW 13 is the minor son who was sent by his mother to call the informant. The deposition was recorded two years after the occurrence and at the time of occurrence he was assessed to be of 9 years. He has stated that the accused was asking Munni Didi to drink but she was denying. When his mother knocked the door, then it was not opened, subsequently, the accused opened the door and speeded away through his bicycle. He was sent by his mother to the Advocate Krishnakant Babu where his father was working as junior. His father came and thereafter, found Munni dead. The investigating officer has stated that he investigated into the occurrence. 12. The oral evidence is consistent that in the night the appellant was sleeping with his newly married wife and in the next morning she was found dead having some marks of violence and the accused has gone out of the house. Now the medical evidence has to be looked into. 13. The post mortem of Munni Kumari was performed by PW 5 who was posted in Darbhanga Medical College and the post mortem was held on 21.8.1986 at 11.45 AM and following ante-mortem injuries were found:- (i) Bruise on left side in front of neck 1 ½” x 1”, (ii) Bruise on left Cheek 1 ½” x 1”, (iii) Bruise on cheek 1” x1” and (iv) Bruise abrasion on left breast 1 ½” x 1 ½”. He found that the stomach of the deceased contained small amount of foul smelling liquid. The doctor could not state what was the substance which smell was coming. He further stated that the Medical Jurisprudence by Modi and Taylor have elaborated the symptoms of poison but none of those symptoms which have been discussed in the Modi and Taylor Medical Jurisprudence were found with the dead body. The doctor could not state what was the substance which smell was coming. He further stated that the Medical Jurisprudence by Modi and Taylor have elaborated the symptoms of poison but none of those symptoms which have been discussed in the Modi and Taylor Medical Jurisprudence were found with the dead body. He further stated that there was no ligature mark present around the neck and the injuries were caused by hard blunt substance. Time elapsed since death was 72 hours. The doctor has further elaborated that none of the injuries mentioned above were capable to cause death. 14. The evidence of the doctor, if analyze, goes to show that the injuries upon the person of the deceased were of such type which were not sufficient to cause death and the doctor has not found any ligature mark. Even no sign of poisoning was found by the doctor but the doctor has taken precaution and has sent viscera for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna whose report has been brought on the record through Ext. 19. The office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna has received one sealed glass jar containing viscera of Munni Kumari daughter of Kapildeo Jha whose post mortem was held on 21.7.1986. The viscera was received in the laboratory on 22.7.1986. The sealed glass was containing some dark brown fluid which could have been decomposed tissues of viscera and the result of examination was that: “No Metallic, alkaloidal, pesticidal or velatile poison could be detected in the dark brown fluid described above.” The report of Forensic Science Laboratory ruled out that it was a case of poisoning. 15. The eye witnesses account are that the death was in suspicious circumstances and suspicion was raised against the appellant. The post mortem report as well as the report of Forensic Science Laboratory has ruled out any foul play as the doctor holding post mortem has not found the injuries capable of causing death. Not only that the doctor conducting autopsy has ruled out that it was a case of poisoning. The assertion of the doctor conducting post mortem was supported by the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and no poisonous substance was found in the viscera. 16. Not only that the doctor conducting autopsy has ruled out that it was a case of poisoning. The assertion of the doctor conducting post mortem was supported by the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and no poisonous substance was found in the viscera. 16. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that suggestion was given to the witnesses that the victim had gone to see Cinema in the late night along with son of Krishnakant Babu which was not tolerated and it was the reason that she was killed by the parents themselves. It has also been argued that in absence of proof of cause of death, it cannot be said that the death was caused by the appellant. Further submission is that for proving the charge, the prosecution has to establish that culpable homicide was committed by the appellant alone. Once factum of culpable homicide is not proved, then the accused cannot be roped in with the offence. 17. On the other hand learned APP has submitted that eye witnesses account are sufficient to prove the charge. 18. Culpable homicide is murder if the act by which he death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. There are some exceptions which has been described under section 300 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the condition precedent for proving the murder is that the act was caused with intention of causing death. Intention has to be gathered from the circumstances. The death of Munni Kumari is not in dispute but the scientific evidence of the doctor has doubted as to whether it was a death caused by offending hands. The initial case of the prosecution was that the death was by poisoning and that was not found to be true. The injuries were not of such type which could cause death. These were necessary conditions which were to be proved for holding a person guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Once that was not proved, then it could not be appropriate to hold the appellant guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In that view of the discussion, charge under section 302 IPC cannot be said to have been proved. 19. Now coming to section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It relates to dowry death. Once that was not proved, then it could not be appropriate to hold the appellant guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In that view of the discussion, charge under section 302 IPC cannot be said to have been proved. 19. Now coming to section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It relates to dowry death. If death of the woman is caused by burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstance within seven years of the marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or any inlaws, then it is a dowry death. Section 113 B of the Evidence Act 1972 raised a presumption of dowry death. In the present case, it has come in evidence that it was an ideal marriage in which there was no demand of dowry. This fact has been accepted by the informant and the persons who were associated with the marriage. Regarding demand of scooter and motorcycle, it has been stated that it was mad later on. But that demand itself is not enough to prove the charge under section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. The first contention which has to be satisfied for proving the charge under section 304 B IPC is that the death of a woman must have been caused by her of bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances. The prosecution has insisted that it was a case of poison meaning that the death is under the category of death “otherwise than under normal circumstances” that could have been proved by Forensic Science Laboratory report or by the doctor who held the post mortem. But none of them has supported that it was such death. The condition precedent for proving the charge under section 304 B IPC is that the prosecution must prove that the death was “otherwise than under normal circumstance”. Dowry death has not to be taken up lightly and it cannot be ignored easily to save the accused but the prosecution has at least to prove the essential ingredient beyond all reasonable doubt after raising the initial presumption of deemed dowry death. Dowry death has not to be taken up lightly and it cannot be ignored easily to save the accused but the prosecution has at least to prove the essential ingredient beyond all reasonable doubt after raising the initial presumption of deemed dowry death. The prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the case, has not been able to establish about the reason of death and it cannot be accepted that the death was in the manner as tried to be established by the prosecution. In that view of the matter, charge under section 304 B IPC is also not established and the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 304 B IPC. 20. Now coming to charge under section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to note that the death has to be established to be caused by poisoning. The prosecution must prove that the substance in question which caused by the person or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc. the accused had administered the substance to the victim with intention or knowledge that such act would cause damage. The prosecution has taken utter precaution for proving charge and it was for this purpose, the viscera was preserved and sent for chemical examination. Though the doctor was not specific as to what was the reason of death but he preserved the viscera for chemical examination and ultimately the prosecution got the viscera examined by Forensic Science Laboratory which has negated the charge that the death was on account of poison. In that view of the matter, charge under section 328 Indian Penal Code also fails. 21. Now all the charges have failed. The case has become doubtful and it has also not been proved that any demand of dowry was ever made. No independent witness has been examined. On the other hand it has come that it was an ideal marriage and every thing was done in the wishes list of the informant. Therefore, there was nothing to presume that the charge under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is proved. Accordingly, charge under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also fails. 22. In view of the discussions made above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge that the appellant has caused murder of his wife. Accordingly, charge under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also fails. 22. In view of the discussions made above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge that the appellant has caused murder of his wife. Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. 23. In the result this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. 24. As none was appearing in this appeal, Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant above named and he has argued well. We appreciate the assistance given by Mr. Tiwary. 25. Let a copy of the first and last page of this judgment be handed over to Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate, so that he may get the prescribed fee from High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna. Appeal allowed.