JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 1. Both the aforesaid Criminal appeals, arising out of a common case/ Sessions Trial, as such, both are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the aforesaid Criminal appeals are directed against the common Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 15.02.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in S.T. Case No.139 of 2011 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304B/ 34 IPC. 3. As per the FIR, lodged by Munni Devi (mother of the deceased) that on 04.12.2010 her daughter, Mamta Devi was married to one Anil Kumar (appellant/accused) on 20.05.2005 and at the time of marriage, dowry in cash and kinds were given. Despite this, it is alleged that she was being harassed in reference to the dowry demand. A female child was born from the said wedlock and because of it, the harassment was increased and dowry demand was made. The husband of the informant, during his life time, used to pay periodically to his daughter so that she can have peaceful marital life. After his death, husband (Anil Kumar) and his family members further started exerting pressure for the dowry demand. Consequently, it is alleged that Rs.30,000/-was paid and subsequently Rs.1,70,000/-was paid to the appellant /accused (Anil Kumar). It is alleged that on 28.11.2010, she came at her natal home and returned on 30.11.2010. At that time also demand of Rs.2 Lakhs was made. On 04.12.2010, she received information that her daughter had died in her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances. On such information, she along with her sons went there where she found the dead body of her daughter in hanging condition in the room. It is also alleged that she had been killed by her husband and other in-laws for non-fulfilment of Rs.2 Lakhs and it was hatched to cover up the crime. 4. On the basis of the written report, the Police instituted First Information Report being 255 of 2010 (dated 04.12.2010) corresponding to G.R. No.1617 of 2010 under Sections 304B/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused, (1) Anil Kumar (husband), (2) Jagarnnath Mahto( father in law), (3). 4. On the basis of the written report, the Police instituted First Information Report being 255 of 2010 (dated 04.12.2010) corresponding to G.R. No.1617 of 2010 under Sections 304B/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused, (1) Anil Kumar (husband), (2) Jagarnnath Mahto( father in law), (3). Bharat Sharma, (4) Sunil Kumar, (5) Satrughan Kumar, [3 to 5 being elder brotherinlaw], (6) Kiran Devi (7) Manju Devi, (8) Sunita Devi (6 to 8 being the elder sister in law/ Gotani), (9) Raja (s/o Bharat Kumar) and (10) Lalo Devi (Nanad). 5. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellants, Anil Kumar (husband) and Sunil Kumar (elder brother in law/ Bhaisur) under Sections 306/ 34 IPC. Both these appellants/ accused were put on trial for the offence under Sections 306/ 34 IPC and alternative charge under Section 304 B/34 IPC was also framed. 6. Altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents were adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits. 7. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellants has been recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The defence of the appellants/ accused is of innocence and false implication. 8. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that the part of the prosecution case has been falsified during investigation and the charge-sheet was submitted against only two of these appellants, whereas, allegation was levelled against the husband and entire family members ten in number had been implicated in the FIR. Furthermore, the Police on investigation did not find the case to be true under Section 304B IPC and submitted charge-sheet for abatement of commission of suicide. 9. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel for the appellants that out of the eight witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, six of them are material witnesses. P.W.7 is the Doctor who conducted the autopsy, whereas P.W.8 is the investigating officer. Out of six material witnesses, except the informant (P.W.2) and her son, all other witnesses i.e. P.W.3, P.W.1 (Prithvi Nath Gupta), P.W.4 (Beena Devi), P.W.5 (Gunja Devi), P.W.6 (Janak Prasad) [who were the residents of Yaduvanshi Nagar, where the place of occurrence is alleged to have taken place, have not at all supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile by the prosecution. 10. 10. It is submitted that the prosecution case mainly rests upon the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.3 has not stated with regard to the amount which was demanded by the in-laws of the deceased and when such demand was made. 11. It is further argued that if the witness is trustworthy and his deposition does not suffer from any contradiction, the judgment of conviction can be passed on the solitary account of the witness. P.W.2 (informant and mother in law of the deceased) has not only exaggerated her account, but given contradictory version, and, therefore, in the present case the Judgment of conviction cannot be held on the solitary account regarding her dowry demand. 12. It is argued that the testimony of P.W.2 cannot be relied as it suffers from material contradiction and exaggeration. In the written report, allegation of harassment and demand is directed against the entire family of the in-laws, whereas in her testimony, she confines her charges only with respect to present appellants. The total amount which was being demanded has not been stated in the FIR. However, P.W.2 states that the demand of Rs.5 Lakh was being made. She further adds that on 28.11.2010 when the deceased had come to her natal home and on 30.11.2010, she was on fasting, but despite that she was assaulted by her husband and forcibly taken back to her matrimonial home. This part of the story also does not figure in the FIR. 13.It is also stated by this witness that after the deceased returned to her matrimonial home and on 02.12.2010, she had telephonically informed that she had been confined in a room and was not being served food. Strangely enough, this has also not been stated in the written report. On 03.12.2010, it is said that she had gone to meet her daughter along with her two sons, but she was not permitted to meet. This is also a version which does not find any reference in the written report. Out of her two sons, only one son, namely, Anil Kant Sharma has been examined as P.W.3, but he has not corroborated this part of her testimony, whereas her another son, Anuj was withheld by the prosecution and not examined. 14. This is also a version which does not find any reference in the written report. Out of her two sons, only one son, namely, Anil Kant Sharma has been examined as P.W.3, but he has not corroborated this part of her testimony, whereas her another son, Anuj was withheld by the prosecution and not examined. 14. If at all the deceased was assaulted in the natal home on 30.11.2010, it is baffling as to why the other members of the family have not testified regarding it. In the cross-examination at Para-4, she has also gone on record to state that a Panchayati was also convened, but the entire prosecution evidence is completely bereft of the panchayat being held. In cross-examination, she has reiterated regarding the dowry demand of Rs.2,10,000/-being paid to the appellant no.1, but in her cross-examination, she was unable to give the date when the payment was made or by which means it was so made. 15. I.O. (P.W.8) has deposed in Para-4 that Munni Devi (P.W.2) and Anil Kant Sharma ( P.W.3) have not stated anything regarding demand of dowry. 16. Learned SPP/ APP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. It is argued that there are basic ingredients to prove the charge under Section 304B IPC :- (a) The unnatural death took place within 7 years of marriage; (b) The deceased was subjected to harassment in reference to dowry demand soon before her death; (c) Once these two ingredients are proved, the presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act is drawn regarding dowry death being caused by the accused persons. 17.It is submitted that in the present case, the dowry demand has been proved by P.W.2 (informant and mother of the deceased) and also by P.W.3. With regard to certain omissions, it is submitted that FIR is not encyclopaedia and all facts are not supposed to be mentioned in the FIR. ANALYSIS 18. The deceased (Mamta Devi) died unnatural death is not in doubt. The death of deceased was suicidal in nature and the same has been proved by the objective findings of the Autopsy Surgeon, who has been examined as P.W.7. He has deposed that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. ANALYSIS 18. The deceased (Mamta Devi) died unnatural death is not in doubt. The death of deceased was suicidal in nature and the same has been proved by the objective findings of the Autopsy Surgeon, who has been examined as P.W.7. He has deposed that the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. It is also not in dispute that the death of the deceased took place in the matrimonial home within 7 years of the marriage. The matter for consideration is whether on the basis of evidence on record, presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act can be drawn and the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded under Section 304 B IPC can be affirmed in the present case. There is no quarrel with the legal proposition advanced on behalf of both the sides regarding necessary ingredients for holding the person guilty for the offence under Section 304 B IPC. 19. Further, what is necessary for consideration is whether the basic facts have been proved by the prosecution so as to draw the presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act. As stated earlier, the unnatural death was caused within 7 years in the matrimonial home has been proved. While appreciating the evidence, the deposition of a witness is to be considered against the background of the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the natural course of human conduct, consistency in the account of the witness and the corroboration. 20.It is settled proposition of law that judgment of conviction can be returned on the solitary account of witness, but the testimony should inspire confidence and should not be riddled with by contradictions and exaggeration. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Manjhi & Anr. Vrs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2003(2) SCC 401 that oral testimony of witnesses can be classified in three category:- (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the third category, the Court to be cautious and see if the statement of such witnesses is corroborated either by other witnesses or by documentary or expert evidence. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as foundation of conviction of an accused. In the third category, the Court to be cautious and see if the statement of such witnesses is corroborated either by other witnesses or by documentary or expert evidence. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as foundation of conviction of an accused. 21.In the present case, the F.I.R. starts with the allegation by the informant against the entire in-laws of the deceased, total ten in number, whereas, in her testimony she has confined the allegation only against the appellants. In the F.I.R, the payment of dowry is pegged to Rs. 2 lakhs, however, in the cross-examination, as discussed above, the witnesses failed to state the date or the time of the said payment being made. There is no documentary evidence on record to show that the said amount was withdrawn from the personal account of the informant or of any of her family members for making such payment. 22. Her son, who has been examined as P.W.-3 is silent about the quantum of demand or payment. He makes a bald assertion regarding the said demand having been made. Another disconcerting feature that speaks about P.W.-2 is that in her testimony, she develops another story i.e. on 30.11.2010 that when her daughter was at natal home, she was assaulted by her husband and demand was made. There is no reference to such assault in the F.I.R. Her son (P.W.3) does not speak about such an assault in his testimony. 23. In view of all these contradictions and inconsistencies surfacing in the account of P.W.-2, this Court is of the view that the quality of witnesses is not as such on which implicit reliance can be placed, without corroboration in material particular. 24. As argued by learned Senior counsel on behalf of the appellants that all other independent witnesses of locality have turned hostile and have not at all supported the case of prosecution. One of the witnesses (P.W.-5) states in para1 that there was some minor altercation between the deceased and her husband on the issue of cooking of fish. 25. On these materials, the allegation of dowry demand, that too, soon before the death of the deceased fails. One of the witnesses (P.W.-5) states in para1 that there was some minor altercation between the deceased and her husband on the issue of cooking of fish. 25. On these materials, the allegation of dowry demand, that too, soon before the death of the deceased fails. The other background facts also needs for consideration that the unfortunate incidence took place after five years of the marriage during which the couple was also blessed with a child. The charge of dowry demand is, therefore, not proved and accordingly conviction under Section 304B of the I.PC is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. 26. In the instant case, the alternative charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. is also not proved. In order to prove the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C., it is necessary for the prosecution to establish the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that the accused abated the suicide of deceased. The expression of abetment used under Section 306 of the I.PC. has the same meaning under Section 107 of the I.P.C which has three ingredients : First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly .-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 27.In the present case, there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellants either instigated, or aided in the commission of such suicide. In absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence, charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C also fails. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. Accordingly, Both the instant appeals are allowed and the sureties are discharged from the liability of bail bond(s). Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.