Ajay Ram and Shama Devi vs State of Bihar

Dharnidhar Jha, J.—The two appellants were charged under sections 304B and 201 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barh for being put on trial in S.T. No. 943 of 2003 and by judgment dated 25.4.2007 were held guilty of committing the two offences by the learned trial judge. The appellants were heard on sentence on 30.4.2007 and by the order of sentence passed on that particular date, each of them was directed to suffer RI for ten years and three years respectively under sections 304B and 201 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The two appellants have appealed to this Court.

Undisputedly, Seema Devi was married to appellant Ajay Ram and was residing in his house on 16.9.2002. The marriage had been solemnized in Baishakh, 2001 and, as per the statement of the informant in his fardbeyan (Ext. 1), he had given gifts of the value of rupees forty thousand besides giving a cycle and a gold ring to the appellant Ajay Ram, but still the two appellants and others of the family were demanding rupees sixty thousand and not getting the amount had assaulted the deceased earlier as well.

The informant stated that when he was at his house, he saw the two appellants and others consigning the dead body into river on 16.9.2002 in the evening and accordingly, came to the outpost of the police station for lodging the report. The informant stated that the deceased was the daughter of his Sala and, as such, he filed the report.

On the basis of Ext. 1, the FIR of the case was drawn up and the investigation was proceeded with, which appears ultimately ending in submission of charge sheet. During the course of trial, nine witnesses were examined, out of whom, P.Ws 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 were declared hostile. Even the informant P.W. 6, Ram Ashray Ram, was not supporting his own version. The father of the deceased, namely, Shiv Kumar Ram, was examined as P.W. 5 but while stating about the demand of rupees sixty thousand by the accused, he did not state about the ill treatment and torture to the lady for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The evidence of the doctor P.W. 7 indicated that the deceased had been throttled to death.

The contention is that even accepting the evidence of P.W. 5 to be true, the necessary ingredients constituting the offence u/s 304B IPC were not established. It was contended that the father of the deceased might have spoken about the demand of dowry, but he did not state that the deceased was ill treated and tortured just prior to the death of the deceased.

P.W. 5 has stated that the deceased was residing in the house of the appellant after her marriage to Ajay Ram and that she was being asked to bring rupees sixty thousand, but nowhere in his evidence did he state that on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demands, the deceased was being ill treated and tortured. The offence u/s 304B IPC requires the prosecution to reasonably establish that just before the occurrence the deceased was ill treated and tortured in or in connection with demand for dowry. That part of the ingredients not being established by evidence of the solitary witness P.W. 5 and other witnesses having turned hostile, which included the informant (P.W.6) also, this Court has no other option but to hold that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed upon the appellants are not sustainable in law.

In the result, the appeal succeeds. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. Appellant Ajay Ram is in custody. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.