JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing the appeal of Ashok Sao as he has already served out the sentence awarded to him. 2. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of 2003 is dismissed as not pressed. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th May, 2003 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2002 holding the appellant guilty under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with condition that period already undergone in custody shall be set of. 4. The short fact of the case as per the written report submitted by informant Pradeep Sao to the Officer-in-Charge Nirsa (Dhanbad) P.S. is that he being resident of village Birladhal, P.S. Nirsa, District-Dhanbad and his cousin Shobha Devi daughter of Rajan Sao was married with Ashok Sao son of Bhola Sao of village Bhaljoria, P.S. Nirsa, District-Dhanbad in the year 1997. She remained comfortable for two years. The further case is that his uncle Arjun Sao is residing with his family members at Mumbai and in the meantime his cousin have two daughters aged about three years and one and half years respectively. After that his cousin was subjected to torture by her husband Ashok Sao, mother-in-law and Dewar Manoj Sao and younger Nanad were abusing and assaulting. About six months ago father of informant went there and tried to pacify the matters between them. One month ago Ashok Sao had visited Mumbai and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from his uncle for the purpose of running a business then his uncle gave him Rs. 20,000/-. The further case is that today at around 10.30 a.m. suddenly he got the news that her cousin Shobha got burn injury then with the help of local people, his cousin Shobha was brought to Government Hospital Nirsa for treatment where the doctor had referred him to Central Hospital, Dhanbad, but on the way, she died. He claimed that accused persons by making conspiracy burnt his cousin to death and requested for appropriate legal action. 5. On the basis of written report, Nirsa P.S. Case No. 15 of 2002 dated 25.01.2002 was registered under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused persons and a formal F.I.R. was drawn being G.R. No. 205 of 2002. He claimed that accused persons by making conspiracy burnt his cousin to death and requested for appropriate legal action. 5. On the basis of written report, Nirsa P.S. Case No. 15 of 2002 dated 25.01.2002 was registered under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused persons and a formal F.I.R. was drawn being G.R. No. 205 of 2002. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against accused appellants and after commitment of case charge under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed upon them to which accused persons denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution altogether examined eight witnesses to prove their case whereas defence has also examined three witnesses. After conclusion of trial, both appellants were found guilty under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the appellant were sentenced seven years rigorous imprisonment under both the Sections. 7. PW-1 Kashi Prasad Sao is the uncle of deceased who deposed that Shobha was her niece whose marriage was solemnized around five years ago with accused Ashok Sao. The marriage was solemnized under the Hindu custom and after marriage Shobha went to her Sasural. He further stated that after two years of marriage she was living peacefully but thereafter accused persons Ashok Sao, his mother and sister started pressurizing Shobha to bring amount from her father which will be used for business purposes. This information was given by Shobha Devi while he was visiting her Sasural. He also stated that six months before the occurrence he had visited the Sasural of Shobha and had tried to pacify her husband and in-laws. In the morning of 25.01.2002, the villagers of Ashok Sao informed her that Shobha got burn injury then he went there along with his son. While they were on the way, he saw that Ashok and Manoj were carrying Shobha in a Tempo to the hospital where Shobha was uttering ^^tyk dj ekj fn;k** She was taken to Nirsa Hospital. Thereafter, she was referred to Central Hospital. She died during course of treatment. He recognized Ashok Sao and Manoj Sao in the court. During cross-examination, he stated that while he was at his residence he got the news from a villager of Ashok Sao but he did not remember his name. Thereafter, she was referred to Central Hospital. She died during course of treatment. He recognized Ashok Sao and Manoj Sao in the court. During cross-examination, he stated that while he was at his residence he got the news from a villager of Ashok Sao but he did not remember his name. He admitted that the father of Shobha, Rajan Sao is his cousin (Mamera Bhai) who is resident of village Danauli Phulwaria, District Begusari but he is residing at Mumbai for the last 30 years. He had come from Mumbai to Nirsa and marriage of his daughter Shobha was solemnized with Ashok at Kalyaneshwari temple at Maithan but did not remember the day and date of marriage. Since he was known person to Rajan Sao from Begusarai and Bombay was at a far distance so Rajan Sao solemnized marriage of his daughter at Kalyaneshwari, Maithan as marriage was solemnized at day time and the Pandal and Mandap etc. were not required to be erected. He denied the suggestion that the marriage was solemnized 8/9 years ago. He also stated that Ashok Sao has a shop but he is not aware how he is carrying business. His son Pradeep is also having an Electronic shop which is situated at Jamtara road whereas the shop of Ashok is at G.T. road and the distance between the two shops are around 200 yards. His son and Ashok both have shop for repair of radio, deck etc. but they have no business rivalry. He also stated that before him Ashok or his parents never demanded money from Shobha. He had visited the Sasural of Shobha on 2/3 occasions but he did not remember the day and date of visit. He stated that Shobha has got burn injury but how she was burnt, is not known to him. He had seen Shobha being carried on Tempo to the hospital where first aid were provided. Thereafter, she was referred to Central Hospital. PW-2 Suman Rajan Sao, mother of deceased Shobha stated that marriage of her daughter was solemnized with Ashok five years ago and forty thousand cash and six Bhari gold, T.V. etc. were given as gift and the marriage was solemnized at Kalyaneshwari temple and the marriage expenses were borne by her in presence of her family members and the family of her Bhaisur. were given as gift and the marriage was solemnized at Kalyaneshwari temple and the marriage expenses were borne by her in presence of her family members and the family of her Bhaisur. She further stated that after marriage Bidai was done where Ashok Sao kept her daughter comfortable for about two years and thereafter he started torturing for the money. Her daughter made telephonic call and had stated that her husband and parents-in-law were beating. Meanwhile, she was blessed with two daughters. One month prior to the occurrence her son-in-law had visited their residence at Mumbai and had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for opening of a shop then Rs. 20,000/- was arranged and given to him with assurance that after arranging the rest of money, it will be given later on. After 15/20 days, they got telephonic news from Pradeep of Nirsa that Shobha got burn then she alongwith her husband and both sons went to Nirsa and found that the body of her daughter Shobha was kept on a Tata 407 standing outside her house. The whole body was burnt and smell of Kerosene Oil was coming out from it. She stated that due to dowry, accused persons have burnt her daughter. She recognized Ashok Sao and Manoj Sao in the court. During cross-examination, she stated that she got telephonic news of the accident from Pradeep and thereafter they reached Dhanbad and immediately rushed to Nirsa and firstly went to the residence of her Bhaisur Kashi Prasad Sao (PW-1), then went to the Sasural of Shobha. PW-3 Deonnath Rajan Sao is brother of deceased and PW-5 Rajan Ram Swarup Sao deposed in the similar manner and supported the prosecution version. PW-4 Pradeep Kumar Sah is informant of this case who also stated about solemnization of marriage of his cousin Shobha with Ashok Sao about five years ago. Thereafter, she was comfortable in her Sasural for about two years. Shobha was subjected to torture due to demand of money. Prior to the incident Ashok also went to Mumbai and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from his uncle and they gave him Rs. 20,000/-. He came to know this from his aunt over telephone. about it. Thereafter, she was comfortable in her Sasural for about two years. Shobha was subjected to torture due to demand of money. Prior to the incident Ashok also went to Mumbai and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from his uncle and they gave him Rs. 20,000/-. He came to know this from his aunt over telephone. about it. He further stated that on 25.01.2002 at about 10.30 a.m. he could know about the occurrence of Shobha then he went there and someone was telling that Manoj has poured Kerosene Oil and Ashok lighted the match and burnt her. He along with neighbours of Shobha taken Shobha to Government Hospital, Nirsa but his in-laws were not there. From Nirsa Hospital she was referred to Central Hospital, Dhanbad but she died on the way. He gave his written report to Nirsa Thana and he identified the same which was marked Ext.1. He also proved carbon copy of the inquest report as Ext.2. He recognized both accused in court. During cross-examination, he stated that he could not remember date of marriage of Shobha. He used to visit her Sasural and sometime he was visiting twice in a month. After two years of her marriage, complaints were made by the villagers that her sister was being subjected to torture and assault. He heard from the neighbours of Shobha also but their names are not known to him. He also replied that he had not informed the Police or D.C or S.P. nor the matter was brought before the Punch. He also stated that Ashok or Manoj have not informed about Shobha getting burnt. He also replied in the cross-examination that in the Sasural of Shobha no door is fixed in the kitchen but in the kitchen there is one wooden rack for keeping the spices and oil. When Shobha got burn injury, Ashok and Manoj were not in the house. He also stated that when he first time saw Shobha, she was burnt severely even her face was burnt. He denied all the suggestions put to him. PW-6 Dr. Shailendra Kumar, who has conducted post-mortem examination of dead body of Shobha has found following ante mortem injury:- “Dermo epidermal anti mortem burn injuries were found all over the body of the deceased. Thick soot and partially destruction of cuticle were found all over the body. Scalp hair were partially burn and singed. PW-6 Dr. Shailendra Kumar, who has conducted post-mortem examination of dead body of Shobha has found following ante mortem injury:- “Dermo epidermal anti mortem burn injuries were found all over the body of the deceased. Thick soot and partially destruction of cuticle were found all over the body. Scalp hair were partially burn and singed. Scalp hair and partially burn Jhangea put on by the deceased were emitting faint smell of Kerosene Oil. Soot were present in larynx, trachea and bronchi and their mucosae were congested. Heart and bladder were empty. Stomach contain about 50 gram pasty food with fleeks of soot. Other external organ were congested. Uterus of non-pregnant and in menstrual stage.” He has said that time elapsed since death is hours to 24 hours. The cause of death due to shock as a result of cent per cent Kerosene Oil burn injuries. The post-mortem report is in his handwriting and it bears his signature which was marked as Ext.3.” During cross-examination, he replied that it is possible that while cooking, the things lifted from the rack the container of Kerosene Oil might have fallen on the body and after catching the fire, this type of injury is possible. He also stated that the burn injury on the body of deceased was such that it would be very difficult to speak at that stage. PW-7 Raju Singh stated about the incident that on 25.01.2002 at 10.00 a.m. he heard alarm coming from the house of Ashok Sao and he saw that body of wife of Ashok Sao had caught fire and other ladies were throwing water over her body. Persons present there were telling for taking her to hospital then he went for arranging the hired vehicle. He met with Ashok Sao in the market and Ashok sat in the hired vehicle and took her wife in a car and went towards the hospital. Thereafter, this witness returned to his home. He recognized both the accused in the court. During cross-examination, he replied that when the alarm was raised from the house of Ashok Sao, the mother and sister of Ashok or Manoj was not present there. The neighbouring ladies were throwing water over her body. He also stated that his house is at a distance of 25 feet from the house of Ashok. He has not heard any dispute between Ashok and his wife. The neighbouring ladies were throwing water over her body. He also stated that his house is at a distance of 25 feet from the house of Ashok. He has not heard any dispute between Ashok and his wife. He also replied that he is not aware that the family of Ashok Sao were demanding dowry and deceased was subjected to torture. PW-8 Abhai Kumar Tiwari is Sub Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer of this case. Thana Prabhari after lodging the case had entrusted him for investigation. He had taken re-statement of informant and had also prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem. He also recorded the statement of other witnesses and had inspected the place of occurrence and deposed about it. He inspected the kitchen which is situated after the Aangan. It was without any door and in the western side, an oven was there which was cleaned. He found traces of Kerosene Oil over walls of kitchen. He had arrested both the accused but his mother and sister were absconding. He recognized both of them. He also proved formal F.I.R. as Ext.4 and inquest report as Ext.5. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence counsel therefore, he was discharged. 8. From the side of defence DW-1 Trilochan Singh was examined who stated that he is knowing both the accused persons since their birth. Marriage of Ashok Sao was solemnized ten years before. Relationship between Ashok Sao and his wife was good and they never saw them quarrelling and he never saw them demanding dowry. Ashok Sao was present in his residence at about 8 a.m. and was repairing his T.V. then one boy came to his house and informed him about the incident then both went there. During cross-examination, he stated that he had not participated in the marriage of Ashok Sao nor he is aware with whom he was married. DW-2 Suresh Kumar also deposed in the same manner that the marriage of Ashok was solemnized ten years ago and his wife died due to burn injury. Both husband and wife were having good relationship and there was no demand of dowry. While she was cooking vegetables and was taking things from the rack then suddenly Kerosene Oil kept there, fallen on her and due to the burning oven, fire caught in the body of Shobha Devi. Both husband and wife were having good relationship and there was no demand of dowry. While she was cooking vegetables and was taking things from the rack then suddenly Kerosene Oil kept there, fallen on her and due to the burning oven, fire caught in the body of Shobha Devi. At that time accused persons were not present in their house nor their mother and sister. Then on Hulla, neighbours and villagers assembled there and she was taken to hospital. When it was asked, Shobha Devi replied that while she was taking something from the rack then Kerosene Oil poured upon her. DW-3 Dr. Bishwanath Prasad Pawandut, In-charge, Medical Officer, P.H.C. Nirsa who had treated Shobha Devi and given first aid to her stated that during treatment when he enquired Shobha Devi she stated that accidentally she got fire. Then he referred her to P.M.C.H. During cross-examination, he replied that while he was making enquiry from the patient, sweeper Ramu Pandit was also present. He also stated that Shobha Devi was burnt 90% while she was brought to Nirsa Sub Health Centre. He also replied that 100% burn person can talk. He had not informed the Police nor Police has taken his statement. 9. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since appellant Ashok Sao, the husband of deceased who has preferred Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1227 of 2003 has already served the sentence awarded to him so he is not pressing the appeal on his behalf. He further submitted that appellant Manoj Sao (Dewar of deceased) who has preferred Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 803 of 2003 is being pursued. He submitted that no case is made out against him as there was no demand of dowry from his side. He also submitted that the witnesses have stated that after marriage the deceased was in a very comfortable position in her Sasural for about two years and thereafter as per allegation, torture started due to demand of dowry. Actually the husband Ashok Sao went Mumbai and demanded Rs. 50,000/- for business purpose for opening a shop and so Rs. 20,000/- was given to him which cannot be termed as dowry. He also submitted that at the time of alleged occurrence, this appellant was not present in the house save and except general allegation, no specific allegation of torture, demand of dowry or any type of assault was alleged against this appellant. 20,000/- was given to him which cannot be termed as dowry. He also submitted that at the time of alleged occurrence, this appellant was not present in the house save and except general allegation, no specific allegation of torture, demand of dowry or any type of assault was alleged against this appellant. Even nobody has seen this appellant either pouring Kerosene Oil and lightning the fire. The deceased was immediately taken to Nirsa Hospital and thereafter she was referred to Central Hospital where she died but PW-6 Dr. Shailendra Kumar has replied in his cross-examination that deceased might not be able to speak as it is difficult to speak at that stage. Therefore, evidence of informant that the deceased had uttered that the appellants (husband and Dewar) have caused burn injury, is not proved. If the deceased was not in a position to speak then disclosing the manner of casualty is doubtful. Lastly, he submitted that even if the demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made it was by the appellant and this appellant had never demanded. This demand is also could not be termed as dowry demand. No witness have deposed anything specific against this appellant. He relied on the decisions passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Appasaheb and Another vs. State of Maharashtra in Appeal (Crl.) No. 1613 of 2005 and in the case of Sanjay and Others vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S. 1374 SB of 2003. 10. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is specific allegation of demand of dowry in which Rs. 20,000/- was given. PW-1 Kashi Prasad Sao and PW-5 Rajan Ram Swarup Sao have supported that deceased was subjected to torture for the demand of dowry. The Doctor has also supported the case that there was severe burn injury. 11. Considering the above submissions of the parties and on perusal of the Lower Court Records as well as on scrutiny of the evidences adduced on behalf the prosecution, it would appear that PW-4 Pradeep Kumar Sah has stated that when he reached the house of Shobha and saw her in severe burn injury condition. Someone said that she was uttering Manoj poured Kerosene Oil and Ashok lighted match box but this evidence is not supported by any other prosecution witness. Someone said that she was uttering Manoj poured Kerosene Oil and Ashok lighted match box but this evidence is not supported by any other prosecution witness. The other witnesses have stated that the fire got accidentally when the container of Kerosene Oil fell down upon the body of deceased. At that time, husband and this appellant were not present in the house. The neighbours had helped her in taking her to hospital. As per their version, the husband had taken her to the hospital where first aid was provided. The Doctor DW-3 Dr. Bishwanath Prasad Pwandut has stated and corroborated the accidental falling of Kerosene Oil upon her. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the witnesses have deposed merely on the basis of the information got from others. PW-1 Kashi Prasad Sao has deposed that he saw Ashok and Manoj were carrying Shobha in a Tempo to the hospital whereas informant PW-4 Pradeep Kumar Sah has deposed that after getting the news, he reached there along with neighbours of Shobha and taken her to Government Hospital, Nirsa but in-laws of Shobha were not there so there is contradiction between the evidence of father and son regarding the carrying of deceased to hospital. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed upon the evidence of prosecution against this appellant. 12. Under these circumstances, the appellant Manoj Sao (Dewar of the deceased) deserves to get benefit of doubt. The part of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th May, 2003 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2002 is set aside so far as this appellant is concerned. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 14. Since the appellant is on bail, therefore he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 15. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned along with the copy of judgment.