Pushpendra & Ors. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

By this common judgment both the Criminal Appeal Nos 978/2015 and 982/2015 are being decided.

The Criminal Appeal No.978/2015 under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellants/accused persons against the judgment

and conviction dated 24.03.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Singrauli (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.318/2010, whereby the each

appellants No.1, 3 & 4 have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC and awarded the sentence in graver

offence Section 304-B of IPC, R.I. for seven years and also convicted under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to R.I. for two

years and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Appellant No.2 Ku. Jyoti has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and awarded

sentence of R.I for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and convicted under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded sentence of R.I. for

two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulations.

In Criminal Appeal No.982/2015 under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. complainant Anjani Prasad Pandey challenged the acquittal of Ku. Jyoti

under Section 304-B of IPC and also prayed for enhancement of sentence inflicted by trial Court on respondents/accused persons.

The case of prosecution in brief is that the marriage of deceased Shashi Pandey was solemnized with accused Pushpendra on 23.06.2007.

Other accused Aditya Pandey and Smt. Ratan Kumari are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased and Ku. Jyoti is her sister-in-law.

Prior to marriage, at the time of Tilak ceremony (engagement) on 20.06.2007 father of deceased namely Anjani Kumar Pandey had given

Rs.1,11,551/- as customary gift to accused Pushpendra. Being dissatisfied with the above amount, Aditya Prasad Pandey made a demand of

Rs.3,00,000/- and a Maruti car as dowry and threatened to break marriage if the demand is not meted out. As the father of deceased Anjani

Pandey was not inclined to satisfy the demand he refused to marry his daughter with Pushpendra. A dispute arose there wherein relatives of both

parties intervened and on their conciliation, Aditya Pandey agreed to marry his son without taking dowry. Thereafter, marriage was consummated

on 23.06.2007 and deceased went to her marital home at village Kathura.

As per prosecution when deceased arrived at her marital home, her husband Pushpendra told her that your father had promised to give

Rs.3,00,000/- and a Maruti car in dowry but gave only Rs.1,11,551/-. Therefore, next time when she will come to her marital home, she should

bring the remaining part of money and maruti car from her father. Deceased tried to object against this demand, then Pushpendra beaten her. Other

accused persons Aditya Pandey, Smt. Ratan Kumari, Ku. Jyoti also asked the deceased to fulfill the demand of dowry as mentioned above. The

accused persons used to beat and harass the deceased for demand of dowry. The deceased informed her sister Shimla Pandey and brother Om

Prakash who came after a week to take her back to her parental house. The deceased came to her parental house and stayed there for a week,

then again went to her marital home and stayed there for twenty days. She informed to her parents and other family members that she was

repeatedly harassed and beaten by the accused persons for demand of dowry. Till the month of February, 2008, the deceased visited her parental

house 3-4 times and on each occasion, she made complaint of cruelty and harassment meted out to her by accused persons for demand of dowry.

In the first week of February, 2008 Pushpendra fell ill and hospitalized in Nehru Hospital Jayant for ten days. During this period, the deceased

remained in hospital and looked after her husband. Thereafter, Pushpendra and deceased went to village Kathura on 17th February where

deceased lived in her marital house till her death. During this period also deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons for demand of

dowry.

As per prosecution, on 29.02.2008 in the morning deceased fell down in a Well near her marital home. She was taken out from the well and

brought to Nehru Hospital Jayant where the doctors found her ""brought dead"". The intimation of incident was given at police out post Jayant from

the hospital, the police registered Marg Intimation Ex.P-5 and initiated the inquest. Rajendra Singh Baghel Tehsildar prepared panchnama Ex.P-3

of dead body and sent the body for postmortem. Dr. G.S Soni performed postmortem at District Hospital Baidhan and found the death of

deceased was result of drowning in water. During inquest the spot map Ex.P-7 was prepared and a sample of water of well was collected and

seized. In the inquest, it was found that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry and a dowry death was

committed by the accused persons. The police registered F.I.R. Ex.P-11 on 20.04.2008 and registered the offence, the statement of witnesses

were got recorded and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against accused persons and brother-in-laws Pramod,

Manoj of deceased before the Court.

The trial Court framed the charge of offence punishable under Section 304-B in alternative Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of

dowry prohibition Act against the accused persons Pushpendra, Ku. Jyoti, Aditya Pandey and Smt. Ratan Kumari. The accused persons abjured

guilt and pleaded innocence.

In their defence it is submitted by the accused persons that they have never made any demand of dowry or practiced cruelty with the deceased.

Deceased accidentally fell down in the well and died due to drowning. After the incident, the parents and other relatives of deceased arrived on the

spot and remained present during inquest. They did not make any complaint to police regarding demand of dowry and cruel treatment to the

deceased. It is further submitted that the father of deceased made a demand of Rs.10,00,000/- from the accused persons and threatened them to

falsely implicate in the offence of dowry death, if his demand is not fulfilled. As accused persons had not fulfilled the demand, a false case has been

filed against them.

The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in its support whereas the accused persons had examined 9 witnesses in their defence.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

The first question for consideration arises as to whether the death of deceased was homicidal or accidental or she has committed suicide ? It is

not disputed that on 29.02.2008 at village Kathura the deceased fell down in the public Well situated near the house of accused persons. She was

taken out of the Well and brought to Nehru Hospital Jayant where doctors found her brought dead. Rajan Singh Baghel Tahsildar (PW-10)

deposed that during inquest, on 29.02.2008 he prepared panchnama Ex.P-3 of dead body of deceased Smt. Shashi and sent the body for

postmortem to District Hospital Baidhan.

Dr. G.S. Soni (PW-7) deposed that on 29.02.2008 at District Hospital Baidhan he had conducted postmortem of deceased Smt. Shashi

Pandey and found following injuries :-

(I) Abrasion and bruises 2 x 1.5 inch below chin.

(ii) Abrasion 1 x .5 inch over right knee.

(iii) Abrasion 1 x .5 inch over left knee.

(iv) Abrasion 6 x 4 inch below injury No.3.

On internal examination it was found that white froth was present in trachea.

Left chamber of heart was empty and right was filled with dark froth and blood. In the stomach brown colour water was present. No internal

injuries were found. It is opined by the doctor that cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning in the water. The statement of doctor is duly

corroborated by the postmortem report Ex.P-5 given by him. In cross-examination, this witness has not made any contradictory statement. He has

clarified that the injuries found on person of body of deceased were superficial in nature. The doctor has preserved the Visera and femur bone of

the deceased for diatom test. In the FSL report Ex.P-10, nothing was found adverse to postmortem report and it is opined by the doctor that as

the cause of death is clearly established, therefore, there is no need to conduct diatom test. The postmortem report ruled out any possibility in

respect of theory that deceased was done to death earlier and thereafter her body was thrown into Well. In view of aforesaid evidence it is rightly

proved by the trial Court that the deceased died due to drowning in the water which is not a normal death.

It is settled law that in order to convict an accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, the following essentials must be

satisfied:

(i) the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances;

(ii) such death must have been occurred within seven years of her marriage;

(iii) soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband;

(iv) such cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, demand for dowry.

When the above ingredients are established by reliable and acceptable evidence, such death shall be called dowry death and such husband or his

relatives shall be deemed to have caused her death.

It is also important to consider the provisions of Section 113-B of Evidence Act which reads under

113-B, Presumption as to dowry death - When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that

soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry,

the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation - For the purpose of this section ""dowry death"" shall have the

same meaning as in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Section 113-B of the Act enjoins a statutory presumption regarding dowry death. It is held in case law Baijnath and others Vs. State of M.P.

(2017) 1 SCC 101 that mere factum of unnatural death in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict accused

under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. Only when if prosecution proves beyond doubt that deceased was subjected to cruelty/harassment in

connection with dowry demand soon before her death, presumption under Section 113-B can be invoked.

In view of aforesaid principle, we will consider the evidence adduced by the parties to find out whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty

or harassment in connection with dowry soon before her death.

It is not disputed that the marriage of Puspendra with the deceased Smt. Shashi was solemnized on 22.06.2007 at village Kathura. The father

of deceased Anjani Pandey (PW-8) deposed that prior to marriage on 20.06.2007, he went village Kathura to perform Tilak ceremony. In the

Tilak, he had given Rs.1,11,551/-, a gold ring and a gold chain. This gift could not satisfy the accused Aditya Pandey and he had made a demand

of Rs.3,00,000/- and a Maruti car. As Anjani Pandey was not inclined to fulfill the demand, he told Aditya Pandey that if he would raise the

demand of dowry like this, he would not marry his daughter. Thereafter, with the intervention and negotiation of the relatives, Aditya Pandey

agreed to marry his son without making any demand of dowry. This fact is verified by the other witnesses Ram Ketran Dubey (PW-6), Chitrakoot

Dubey (PW-5), Chandrakesh Dubey (PW-4) Om Prakash (PW-3), Smt. Angarmati (PW-13) and Jai Prakash Pandey (PW-14). It is further

admitted by Anjani Pandey (PW-8), Smt. Angrmati Pandey (PW-13), Jai Prakash Pandey (PW-14) that after Tilak ceremony, the accused

persons had not made any demand of dowry and marriage was consummated without any dispute. Thus, it is proved that although the accused

Aditya Pandey had made the demand of dowry at the time of Tilak but later on he gave up the demand on advise of relatives and the marriage was

performed without any demand of dowry.

After the marriage deceased Smt. Shashi went to her marital home at village Kathura first time on 23.06.2007. After six days, her sister Ku.

Shimla Pandey (PW-2) and Om Prakash (PW-3) went village Kathura to bring back the deceased. Shimla and Om Prakash deposed that at that

time, their sister the deceased had informed them that her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law Jyoti are demanding

Rs.3,00,000/- and a Maruti car in dowry. When she objected to it, her husband had beaten her. Accused Jyoti and mother-in-law Smt. Ratan

Kumari were making complaint to Ku. Shimla regarding insufficient dowry and told her that her father had not given the dowry as promised by

him. This fact is verified by Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-8) and Smt. Angarmati (PW-13), the parents of deceased by stating that when deceased

returned home first time from her marital home, she told them that the accused persons are making demand of Rs.3,00,000/- and Maruti car in

dowry and used to harass and beat her.

Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-8) deposed that after staying for a week in the parental home, deceased again went to her marital home and lived

their for about 20 days and returned back. She informed that after three days, Pushpendra went to join his service but he had insisted his sister

Jyoti to make demand of dowry regularly from the deceased in his absence. Jyoti and her mother-in-law used to make demand of dowry and

harass her, Jyoti used to pull her hairs and throw her plate of meal. They used to beat her. The similar fact has been narrated by Ku. Shimla

Pandey (PW-2), Angarmati (PW-13), Jai Prakash Pandey (PW-14) and Om Prakash (PW-3).

From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Anjani Pandey (PW-8), Smt Angarmati (PW-13), Jai Prakash Pandey (PW-14) and Ku.

Shimla Pandey (PW-2), it appears that the deceased lived in her parental house for a week then she went to her marital home and lived there for

about 2 - 2 1/2 months and returned back, at this time also she made the complaint of harassment and cruel treatment meted to her by accused

persons for demand of dowry.

Shimla Pandey (PW-2) further deposed that the deceased stayed in her parental house for a week then again went to her marital home. After

two months, she met the deceased in a function at the house of Amresh. Deceased told her that Jyoti had beatn her and caused burn injuries by a

firewood. This fact is also corroborated by statement of Smt. Angarmati (PW-13) who met the deceased in the house of Amresh Pandey. Shimla

Pandey (PW-2) and Om Prakash (PW-3) deposed that in the first week of February, they met the deceased in the house of Rakesh, where she

had made the complainant against her father-in-law, motherin- law and sister-in-law by stating that they used to made demand of dowry and beat

her.

It is not disputed that in the first week of February, Pushpendra Dubey, the husband of deceased, fell sick and hospitalized at Nehru Hospital

Jayant. He remained admitted there for about 10-12 days, during this period the deceased stayed with her husband in the hospital and looked after

him. Thereafter, she went to her marital home with her husband where on 29.02.2008 she died.

it is argued by learned counsel for the accused persons that at the time of inquest, the parents and relatives of the deceased were present but

no one had lodged the report of incident to police. The marriage was solemnized without any dispute or demand of dowry. There are material

discrepancies occurred in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. All the main prosecution witness PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8, PW-13

and PW-14 are near relatives of the deceased. Their police statements have been recorded after a delay of two months. From the statement of

Investigating Officer it is found that despite the repeated call of the Investigating Officer, the prosecution witnesses did not come forward to give

their statements. This creates doubt on their testimony. The prosecution witnesses had tried to falsely implicate Manoj Pandey, Pramod Pandey

who are the brother-in-laws of the deceased living in other city. They also tried to implicate elder brother and Bhabhi of Pushpendra who are living

separately in other house. The husband of deceased was employed in other city and after a few days of marriage he went there and returned in the

first week of February when he fell ill. Therefore, it is not possible for him to practice cruelty with the deceased. The prosecution witnesses are

highly interested and trying to falsely implicate all the family members. There is no evidence to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty for

demand of dowry soon before her death. The trial Court on erroneous appreciation of evidence has held the accused persons guilty for

commission of alleged offence.

considering the arguments of learned counsel for the accused persons and perusal of record it is found that the deceased was the daughter of

PW-8 and PW-13. Other witnesses PW-14, PW-2, PW-3 are her real brothers and sisters. Although they are close relatives and appears to be

interested witness but only on this ground, their testimony cannot be disbelieved. They are the close relatives, therefore, it is quite natural that the

deceased might have narrated them about her living conditon and treatment given by her in-laws. In this sort of offence which is committed within

four walls of the house, we cannot expect the corroboration from the independent witness. Sometimes considering the prestige of family and to

save family life, the woman does not make any report to police and do not publicly talk about her home affairs.

It is settled law that merely because in a murder case, prosecution witnesses were interested and inimical, that by itself is no ground to reject

their testimony in toto. The evidence of interested witnesses should however be scrutinised with care. Close relationship of the witness with the

injured is not sufficient to suspect credibility and desirability subjecting the testimony of the evidence of the relatives to close and severe scrutiny

arises only when it is shown that there was likelihood of an attempt to falsely implicate an accused but where the incident had taken place in the

broad day-light and there was no reason to falsely implicate the accused, the testimony of the interested witness could not be brushed aside.

Where the evidence of eye witness is cogent and acceptable, it cannot be rejected for little discrepancies or on cryptic observation of general

nature that it appears to be suspicious or in absence of strong reason and also where it is corroborated.

In Appa Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696 observed that

The witnesses now a days go on adding embellishment to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The

Courts however, should not disbelieved the evidence of such witnesses altogether, if they are otherwise trustworthy.

In another case law State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998 Hon''ble Apxe Court observed that

With regard to false hood stated or embellishment added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember to them that there is a tendancy

amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. In variably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution

story perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved, but that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true in the main, the case should not be

rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that in consistencies of

falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in witness.

In the present case, from the prosecution evidence it is proved that the deceased was married on 23.06.2007 and died on 29.02.2008 just

after eight months of the marriage. During this period, she mostly lived in her marital home. During this period she visited her parental home about

four times and at every time, she complained of cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the accused persons in connection with demand of

dowry. The demand of dowry was also made in presence of Ku. Shimla (PW-2) and Om Prakash (PW-3) when they went to bring back the

deceased first time from her marital home. There is no material discrepancies found in the testimonies of witnesses PW-2, PW-3, PW-8, PW-13

and PW-14 who are the parents, and brother and sister of the deceased. They corroborates each other on every material particulars. Much weight

cannot be given to minor discrepancies in their testimonies which are bound to occur on account of difference in perception, loss of memory and

other invariable factors. A written complaint Ex.D-7 made by Anjani Pandey shows that this complaint has been given to police on the next date

i.e. 28.02.2008 of the incident. The defence has relied upon this report. Therefore, it cannot be said that the father of deceased has not made any

complaint to the police. Therefore it can not be said that no complaint has been made to police by parents of deceased. Simply on the ground of

delayed recording of police statement we cannot reject the testimony of the witnesses. Thus, from the evidence on record it is established that the

deceased was continuously harassed and subjected to mental and physical cruelty for demand of dowry by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-

law and sister-in-law till February, 2008. Thus, it is rightly found proved by the trial Court that soon before her death, deceased was subjected to

cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry by her husband and mother-in-law and father-in-law. The prosecution witnesses has categorically

deposed that accused Jyoti has been continuously harassing and practicing cruelty with the deceased for demand of dowry. The deceased had

made complaint against her to the witnesses Shimla Pandey (PW- 2), Om Prakash (PW-3), Anjani Pandey (PW-8) when she met them at the

house of Amresh Pandey and Rakesh during the month of December and February. This establishes the fact that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty for demand of dowry by Ku. Jyoti also soon before her death.

The expression soon before her death has occurred in Section 304-B of IPC does not imply ""immediate before her death"". In case law

Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2015 AIR SCW 1663 Hon''ble Apex court while considering the expression soon before her death in Section

304-B of Penal Code observed as under:-

In another recent judgment in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, 2015 (1) SCALE 250 : (2015 AIR SCW 716), this Court said:

We are aware that the word ''soon'' finds place in Section 304B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years,

but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past; but should be the continuing cause for the

death under Section 304B or the suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. Once the presence of these concomitants are established or shown or

proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the

accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable

doubt."" (at page 262)

Prosecution witness Om Prakash (PW-3) has stated that on 28.01.2008 the deceased came to his Pathology Centre with her husband and

informed that she was beaten by her mother-in-law and Jyoti for demand of dowry. This show that deceased was continuously harassed and ill

treated by her in-laws in connection with demand of dowry. In defense the accused persons had tried to establish that after the death of the

deceased, her father made a demand of Rs.10 Lacs and threatened to falsely implicate the accused persons. We do not find any iota of truth in this

defense and we agree with the trial Court who after assailing the evidence of defense witness disbelieved their testimonies in this regard.

Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is proved that deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry soon before her death.

Therefore, a presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act can be drawn against the accused persons and we can presume that the accused

persons have caused the dowry death. This is a rebuttable presumption, and now the burden lies upon the accused persons to prove that the death

of a woman was under normal circumstance i.e. natural or accidental. Hon''ble Apex Court in case law Hira Lal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi

(2003) 8 SCC 80 in para 9 observed as under :

A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her

death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to

bring it within the purview of ''death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstance''.

In case law Nallam Veera Styanandam Vs, Public Prosecutor (2004) 10 SCC 769 Hon''ble Apex Court while dealing with applicability of

Section 304-B of IPC in the case of accidental death observed in para 5 as under :-

5 . It is true from the evidence led by the prosecution it has been able to establish that the appellants were demanding dowry which was a

harassment to the deceased. It is also true that the death of the deceased occurred within 7 years of the marriage, therefore, a presumption under

Section 113- B of the Evidence Act is available to the prosecution, therefore, it is for the defence in this case to discharge the onus and establish

that the death of the deceased in all probability did not occur because of suicide but was an accidental death

The similar principle has been reiterated in case law Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 16 SCC 353, wherein the court observed as

under :-

We are, of course, bound by the decision of a larger Bench of this Court in Shamnsaheb M. Multtani vs. State of karnataka, (2001) SCC (Cri)

358 . Following that decision, we must hold that the initial burden of proving the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in

circumstances that are not normal is on the probability; such death should be in connection with or for a demand of dowry which is accompanied

by such cruelty or harassment that eventually leads to woman''s death in circumstances that are not normal. After the initial burden of a deemed

dowry death is discharged by the prosecution, a reverse onus is put on the accused to prove his innocence by showing, inter alia, that the death

was accidental.

Thus, keeping in view the presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act, the burden shift upon the accused persons to prove in rebuttal

that the death of deceased was either natural or accidental. Although the prosecution witnesses Ku. Shimla (PW-2), Om Prakash (PW-3), Anjani

Pandey (PW-8), Smt. Angarmati Pandey (PW-13) and Jai Prakash (PW-14) deposed that deceased was beaten and killed and thereafter thrown

into the Well, but these witnesses were not present on the spot at the time of incident. Therefore, their statements in this regard are only an opinion

which cannot take the place of evidence. The prosecution has examined Babu Lal (PW-15) as witness to the incident. Babu Lal deposed that at

the time of incident at around 9:00 O''clock in the morning he was cutting grass near the Well. The deceased Shashi Pandey came to take bath and

fetch water from the Well. She had placed her foot on a wooden log, kept over the peri-feri of Well and started pulling the rope attached to the

bucket in order to take the water. Meanwhile, her leg slipped from the wooden log and she fell down in the Well. Seeing the incident, Babu Lal

raised alarm for help, hearing this Aditya Pandey, Pushpendra, Girdhari and Chotte Lal arrivd there. Babu Lal and Chotte Lal entered in the Well

and took out the deceased by a cot. She was drowned in the water and became unconscious. She was taken to hospital where doctor found her

dead. In crossexamination, the statement of this witness remained unchallenged. The prosecution has not declared this witness hostile. The

statement of Babu Lal is also corroborated by the spot map Ex.P-7 wherein the Investigating Officer has indicated the spot from where this

witness had seen the incident. The defence witness Chotte Lal Pandey (DW-3) also corroborates the testimony of Babu Lal. He has also stated

about the accidental fall of the deceased in the Well. The prosecution witness Babu Lal had verified the presence of DW-3 on the spot at the time

of incident.

Prosecution witness Babu Lal is an independent witness, the prosecution has relied upon his testimony. He has not been declared hostile.

Therefore, his testimony is binding upon the prosecution. Hon''ble Apex Court in case law Rajaram Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005) 5 SCC 272 and

Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2005) 5 SCC 258 that the accused can rely on the evidence of prosecution witness who is not

supporting the prosecution case if said witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. The injuries noticed on person of body of deceased

were superficial and could be caused during fall in the Well or during rescue of the deceased. Doctor has not given clear opinion about the age of

the injuries. Therefore, it could have been caused due to so many reasons. The trial Court on erroneous appreciation of the evidence arrived at the

conclusion that the death of deceased was either homicidal or she might have committed suicide. This finding cannot be sustained. Thus, we can

rely upon the testimony of witness Babu Lal (PW-15) and it is found proved that the deceased had accidentally fell into the Well and died due to

drowning. Her death was an accidental death, therefore, the presumption drawn under Section 113-B of Evidence Act is successfully rebutted by

the defense. Consequently, it is not proved that the accused persons have caused a dowry death and the offence under Section 304-B of IPC is

not proved beyond reasonable doubt against them.

From the evidence on record, it is duly proved that deceased was subjected cruelty in connection with demand of dowry by the accused

persons. The trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence held them guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC

and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. We affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard.

The Criminal Appeal No.978/2015 preferred by the accused persons is partly allowed and conviction and sentence of appellants/accused

persons Pushpendra, Aditya Pandey and Smt. Ratan Kumari under Section 304-B of IPC is set-aside and they are acquitted of the charge of

aforesaid offence.

The conviction and sentence of appellants/accused persons Pushpendra, Ku. Jyoti, Aditya Pandey and Smt. Ratan Kumari, awarded by the

trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is affirmed and confirmed. They

all are convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/- and also under Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and sentence to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine they shall suffer 1 month

imprisonment. The bail bonds of appellants/accused persons stand cancelled. They are directed to surrender before trial Court to serve out the

remaining part of the sentence.

In regard to Criminal Appeal No.982/2015 preferred by the complainant we have already discussed the evidence adduced by the parties and

arrived at the conclusion that the charge of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against

theaccused persons. They are held guilty under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to maximum punishment by the trial Court. Therefore, the

present appeal is dismissed.