Ramesh & Anr.etc. vs State of U.P.

Challenge by the Appellant motherinlaw Savitri Devi (A1) along with her two appellant sons, husband Satya Prakash (A2) and Dewar Ramesh (A3) in these two connected appeals is to the same judgment and order of their convictions and sentences dated 4.3.2006 for offences u/Ss. 498A and 304B I.P.C., P.S. New Agra, District Agra and implanted sentences of 3 years RI with Rs. 5,000/ fine on each of the appellants for the first charge and 10 years RI for the second charge imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Agra, in ST. No. 957 of 2000, State v. Satya Prakash and others and hence both the appeals, after being clubbed, are decided by this common judgment.

According to the prosecution allegations, as are perceivable from written report, exhibit Ka1 and chik FIR exhibit Ka3, and subsequently testified before the trial Court by the three fact witnesses informant Bhagwan Singh P.W. 2, Man Singh P.W. 3 and Bahadur Singh P.W. 4,were that informant Bhagwan Singh P.W. 2 s/o. Nirottam resident of Ashokpura had six issues namely Kiran Devi (deceased), Man Singh (P.W.2), Ravindra, Sukkhi, Janki and Pappi, out of whom Kiran Devi (deceased) was married to appellant Satya Prakash A2, residents of village Manoharpur, quarter to seven years prior to her demise on 28.6.1993 in her parental village Ashokpura. Distance between both the villages is about a kilometer. According to his economic and fiscal means in formant had given dowry in the marriage albeit appellants A 1 to 3 and fatherinlaw Hakim Singh (since expired) were dissatisfied with it and deceased was being taunted, harassed and tortured for bringing less dowry and appellants, additionally, desired a motorcycle and a buffalo. Deceased anyhow tolerated her torture but during her marital life span, whenever she visited her parental house, five or six times, she had complained about appellants behave our and their rapacious demand to her parents.

Nonfulfillment of dowry demand aggravated deceased harassment and torture which took ugly turn of physical assault as well. Appellants had imbibed an idea of committing bigamy by solemnizing second marriage of A2 as well if their lust for additional dowry is not satiated. During intervening period deceased had also attained motherhood by giving birth to a female child. In the month of August, 1999 appellants pushed out the deceased and her daughter out of their house in her worn attires and since then she was aboding with her parents. Eight or ten days prior to her death (date of the incident) fatherinlaw Hakim Singh came to take her back and at that time he was given pairs of buffaloes and goats by the informant who had also requested him to desist from future torturing of the deceased. As a gesture of respect and concern informant had accompanied the three to Hakim Singh''s house to see them off.

On 30.5.2000, P.W. 4 Bahadur Singh and Nemi Chand were coming to appellant''s village Bahadur Pur and therefore informant requested them to bring the deceased back with them. Both the aforesaid persons went to village Bahadur Pur and stayed there over night. Next day morning while on their way to bring Kiran Devi(deceased) back with them that they gained knowledge that she had been done to death and consequently after their return to their village they intimated informant (PW2) about the death of his daughter at 8 a.m. Immediately, PW2 accompanied with covillagers Brijendra, Hakim Singh, Layak Singh, Kalicharan etc: came to appellant''s house and there they found corpse of the deceased lying in an inside room. After making some preliminary inquiries informant got FIR exhibit Ka1 scribed through Prabhu Dayal and lodged it at police station New Agra, District Agra the same day at 8.15 p.m., which FIR was registered as crime No. 213 of 2000, under Sections 498A, 304B, I.P.C.

P.W. 5 Rudal Singh, Head Moharrir prepared chik FIR exhibit Ka2 and relevant G.D. entry exhibit Ka3.

Circle Officer, P.S. Hariparvat, Jagdish Sharma, P.W. 6 set investigation into motion copied the chik FIR and the G.D. entry, recorded 161, Cr.P.C. statement of the informant, conducted spot inspection and prepared site plan exhibit Ka4. Thereafter, I.O. interrogated head moharrir Rudal Singh. On 2.6.2000, inlaws were apprehended and their statements were recorded. Two days thereafter C.O. interrogated punch witnesses Guru Prasad, Meghraj, Bedan Singh, Pati Ram and Kajjan Singh and recorded their statements. On 10.7.2000, I.O./PW6 prepared recovery memo of the two plastic jerry cans found at the spot which were half filled with kerosene oils and thereafter interrogated and recorded the statements of witnesses Nathu Ram and Sobaran Singh. Circle Officer thereafter copied various affidavits filed by witnesses Sheela Devi, Indra Jeet, Pappu, Bhagwan Singh, Man Singh, Ram Prasad and'' Nemi Chand. Subsequent thereto, I.O. interrogated the two postmortem doctors Dr. A.K. Singh and Dr. R.L. Sharma. Inquest on the cadaver of the deceased was conducted by S.I. Laxmi Narayan,on the information supplied by Nathu Ram son of Kali Charan, on 31.5.2000 from 12.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. who had prepared inquest report Ext. Ka 6 and other relevant papers, therefore, I.O. had interrogated him as well. Concluding investigation, on 21.7.2000, C.O.(P.W.6), the I.O. chargesheeted A1 to 3,vide exhibit Ka5. Perusal of inquest papers reveal that at that time parental relatives of the deceased were present at the spot but they refused to be a witness of inquest.

Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 1.6.2000 at 2.15 p.m. by the two doctors who had prepared their autopsy report Ext. Ka 13, the perusal of which reveals that deceased was 26 years of age having an average built body, rigor mortis had passed off from her both extremities but decomposition had not set in. Two days had lapsed since her death. In the stomach 100 m.l.. watery fluid was present, with small and large intestines containing digested food, fecal matter and gases. Her cavity and peritoneum were lacerated, lung, spleen, membrane were congested. Carbon particulars were present in her trachea and larynx, which both were also congested. Following antemortem injuries were detected on deceased body by the doctors:

AMI Extensive deep burn all over the body with sole & head Rt. flank and abdomen burnt.......are coming out mark of red line present, singeing of hair present, smell of kerosene oil is present. Body opened muscle deep due to burn on both lateral side of chest cage back of left side chest & abdomen part of Lt. & Rt. thigh. Tongue is protruding out.

From the perusal of the deposition of the doctor, it transpires that the body of the deceased was badly burnt, right side portion of abdomen had bursted and from it inside body organs were protruding. Both the breast were burnt upto muscles. Back side of right chest, abdomen, front of both the thigh had bursted and torned because of extensive burnt. Tongue was protruding out, bones and joint were burnt at places, generation organs were also burnt. Kerosene oil smell was emanating from the body and lining of redness were present.

Regarding cause of death doctors opined that it was due to shock as a result of extensive burn injuries.

On the basis of the chargesheet exhibit Ka5, accused appellants were summoned by the Magistrate, who finding their case triable by Court of Session committed it to Session''s Court where it was registered as S.T. No. 957 of 2000. IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, charged A1 to 3 u/Ss. 498A, 304B, I.P.C. on 14.2.2001 and since they all abjured those charges and claimed to be tried that their trial proceeded in an effort to bring their guilt home.

In the trial prosecution relied upon testimonies of Pappu P.W. 1, informant Bhagwan Singh P.W. 2, Man Singh P.W. 3 and Bahadur Singh P.W. 4 as fact witnesses, besides depositions of formal witnesses head moharrir Rudal Singh P.W. 5, 1.0. Jagdish Sharma P.W. 6 and postmortem doctor A.K. Singh P.W. 7. PW6 had also proved the inquest report and other relevant papers prepared by S.I. Laxmi Narayan as exhibits Ka6 to Ka10 and recovery memos of burnt clothes and jerrycans exhibits Ka11 to Ka12.

During trial, P.W. 1 Pappu, a resident of appellants village turned hostile and deposed that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized 7 or 8 years ago. Dowry to the satisfaction of the appellants were given in the marriage and hence they had not raised any further demand. He denied that the deceased was assaulted because of nonfulfillment of dowry demand and he had not witnessed pouring of kerosene oil on the deceased. He denied his previous 161, Cr.P.C. statement made to the I.O. and stated that he had signed on blank paper under pressure mounted by the police. PW1 denied prosecution suggestion that he was not testifying truth to shield covillagers and neighbours.

However, informant Bhagwan Singh P.W. 2 and his son Man Singh P.W. 3 supported prosecution case in all it''s material aspects of allegations and, besides narrating their allegations contained in the FIR, exhibit Ka1, deposed further that at the time of death of the deceased her daughter was 5 or 6 years of age, police had got the postmortem done and it was they who had performed the last rites at the bank of river Yamuna. P.W. 2 further deposed that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the Hindi calendar month of Asharh. He, however, pleaded ignorance regarding the date of the marriage but testified that the marriage was solemnized quarter to seven years ago. He had given lagan patri (the document for fixing of the marriage indicating the date and the details of the parties prepared by the pandit). This witness, PW2, was crossexamined searchingly for many days by the defence but in respect of the said lagan patri defence failed to shatter his testimonies. PW2 also stated that lagan patri was prepared in duplicate by Babu Ram Pandit resident of village Chhimahi and in the course of investigation he had handed over the same to the I.O. He is clear and emphatic in denying defence suggestion that he had got the said lagan patri forged and manufactured. He had further stated that the original of lagan patri was sent to the house of the bridegroom (appellants). He further disclosed that deceased had visited their house four or six times. On the first occasion after her marriage she had stayed in her inlaws house for eight days. Truthfully this witness had admitted of not lodging any complaint against torture of the deceased and assault on her to anybody on any earlier occasion. He had denied defence case that FIR was dictated after consultation with a lawyer. He had also admitted that one of his sister Sukkhi was also married in appellants village to Ved Prakash and her inlaws house is also close by. He had denied the suggestion that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized a decade ago and at the time of her death, her daughter was 7 or 8 years old besides refuting defence case that there was no demand of dowry by the appellants nor they had tortured the deceased for the same. PW2 also denied the suggestion that because the deceased was unable to conceive a male child that she was under psychological trauma because of which she had committed suicide.

Testimonies of PW2 has been corroborated by P. W. 3 Man Singh, brother of the deceased on all material aspects of the allegations and he had further testified that at the time of deceased marriage he was a child of twelve years and at that time, deceased being elder to him was eighteen or nineteen years. Being illliterate PW3 showed his ignorance regarding actual date of deceased marriage besides stating that it was performed in the Hindi calender month of jeth but in the same breath he has stated that he could not tell correctly all Hindi calender months. PW3 further testified that they had arrived at appellants house after demise of his sister and on that date her daughter was five years of age. This witness denied de fence suggestion that information regarding deceased death was given tothem by her husband A2 and that there was no demand of dowry from the appellants and that he had testified untruthfully and the deceased was never tortured for demand of dowry. He further denied defence case that because the deceased was unable to bear a male child that she committed suicide under psychological break down.

P.W.4, Bahadur Singh in his statements had evidenced that he is a covillager of informant and deceased was known to him. He had gone to bring deceased back to village Bahadur Pur along with Nemi Chandra and there they were informed regarding deceased demise following day morning and consequently they had returned to their village and had divulged the death news to the PW2. This witness was subjected to searching and lengthy crossexamination but the defence failed to elicit any damaging statement from him. It failed to discredit his veracity. From his depositions appellants failed to bring forth any statement which can distract or diminish prosecution case.

Rest of the formal witnesses P.W.5 Rudal Singh, Head Moharrir, Investigating Officers Jagdish Sharma P.W.6 and Autopsy Doctor A.K. Singh P. W.7 have testified above mentioned facts and therefore, the same are being eschewed from being repeated to avoid voluminizing this judgment.

In their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C., all the accused appellants denied incriminating circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidences and pleaded that the marriage of A2 and the deceased was solemnized more than seven years ago in 1991 and they had never demanded any buffalo or motorcycle. Appellant A3 further stated that he had got a dairy at a distance of one and a half kilometers from his residence and he lives there. Appellants examined Nathu Ram D.W.1 to support their version.

According to DWI Ramesh, A3 had a dairy of fifteen or sixteen buffaloes at a distance of one and a half kilometers from his house and he lived there with his family. Deceased had a happy marital life and had no complaints against the appellants. She, howto shatter his testimonies. PW2 also stated that lagan patri was prepared in duplicate by Babu Ram Pandit resident of village Chhimahi and in the course of investigation he had handed over the same to the I.O. He is clear and emphatic in denying defence suggestion that he had got the said lagan patri forged and manufactured. He had further stated that the original of lagan patri was sent to the house of the bridegroom (appellants). He further disclosed that deceased had visited their house four or six times. On the first occasion after her marriage she had stayed in her inlaws house for eight days. Truthfully this witness had admitted of not lodging any complaint against torture of the deceased and assault on her to anybody on any earlier occasion. He had denied defence case that FIR was dictated after consultation with a lawyer. He had also admitted that one of his sister Sukkhi was also married in appellants village to Ved Prakash and her inlaws house is also close by. He had denied the suggestion that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized a decade ago and at the time of her death, her daughter was 7 or 8 years old besides refuting defence case that there was no demand of dowry by the appellants nor they had tortured the deceased for the same. PW2 also denied the suggestion that because the deceased was unable to conceive a male child that she was under psychological trauma because of which she had committed suicide.

Testimonies of PW2 has been corroborated by P. W. 3 Man Singh, brother of the deceased on all material aspects of the allegations and he had further testified that at the time of deceased marriage he was a child of twelve years and at that time, deceased being elder to him was eighteen or nineteen years. Being illliterate PW3 showed his ignorance regarding actual date of deceased marriage besides stating that it was performed in the Hindi calender month of jeth but in the same breath he has stated that he could not tell correctly all Hindi calender months. PW3 further testified that they had arrived at appellants house after demise of his sister and on that date her daughter was five years of age. This witness denied defence suggestion that information regarding deceased death was given tothem by her husband A2 and that there was no demand of dowry from the appellants and that he had testified untruthfully and the deceased was never tortured for demand of dowry. He further denied defence case that because the deceased was unable to bear a male child that she committed suicide under psychological break down.

P. W.4, Bahadur Singh in his statements had evidenced that he is a covillager of informant and deceased was known to him. He had gone to bring deceased back to village Bahadur Pur along with Nemi Chandra and there they were informed regarding deceased demise following day morning and consequently they had returned to their village and had divulged the death news to the PW2. This witness was subjected to searching and lengthy crossexamination but the defence failed to elicit any damaging statement from him. It failed to discredit his veracity. From his depositions appellants failed to bring forth any statement which can distract or diminish prosecution case.

Rest of the formal witnesses P.W.5 Rudal Singh, Head Moharrir, Investigating Officers Jagdish Sharma P.W.6 and Autopsy Doctor A.K. Singh P. W.7 have testified above mentioned facts and therefore, the same are being eschewed from being repeated to avoid voluminizing this judgment.

In their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C., all the accused appellants denied incriminating circumstances appearing against them in prosecution evidences and pleaded that the marriage of A2 and the deceased was solemnized more than seven years ago in 1991 and they had never demanded any buffalo or motorcycle. Appellant A3 further stated that he had got a dairy at a distance of one and a half kilometers from his residence and he lives there. Appellants examined Nathu Ram D.W.1 to support their version.

According to DWI Ramesh, A3 had a dairy of fifteen or sixteen buffaloes at a distance of one and a half kilometers from his house and he lived there with his family. Deceased had a happy marital life and had no complaints against the appellants. She, however, was under immense psychological stress for not Having a son as male descent and that she had died in the intervening night between 30/31.5.2000 when A3 with his family were at their dairy and A1 had gone to his sister''s house. At that time only A2 was present and she was sleeping outside. He further evidenced that on the instructions of A2 he had gone to police station, New Agra and had informed the police. This witness had further deposed that the marriage of A2 was performed in 1991. During his crossexamination, he had stated that he does the business of shoe lacer with four or five cobblers since last fifteen years and was residing in his ancestral house at a distance of hundred or hundred and twenty five meters from the house of appellants and in between these residential accommodations there was no other house at the time of the incident. He had further deposed that when the deceased was engulfed in fire then her family members had raised shrieks, hue and cry and police also had arrived at the spot at 8.00 a.m. in the morning. He further evidenced that when he had gone to get register written information, I.O. had interrogated him and then he had informed the police that because the deceased was not having a male child that she had committed suicide. He had further stated that since nobody interrogated him earlier he did not divulge those facts to anybody. He further deposed that no demand of dowry was raised by the appellants and all these facts were testified by him for the first time in Court. He had denied defence suggestion that he was deposing falsely to shield the appellant accused from punishment.

On the evidences and materials tendered before it, Additional Session''s Judge concluded that prosecution has successfully established both the charges of dowry demand and dowry death beyond any shadow of doubt to the hilt and consequently it convicted the appellants on both the counts and sentenced them as has been referred to in the opening paragraph of this judgment/hence these two connected appeals by the convicted accused challenging their convictions and sentences.

I have heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel in support of this appeal assisted by Sri B.B Paul and Sri Amarjeet Jaiswal learned State counsel in opposition.

Assailing and castigating impugned judgment learned senior counsel submitted that in this case prosecution has failed to bring on record any reliable material that the marriage was solemnized within seven years and therefore, charge under Section 304 B, IPC must fail as it cannot be concluded convincingly that the nuptial knot was tied within seven years, which is an uneschewable fact to bring home that charge. He submitted that according to F.I.R. version quarter to seven years had lapsed since solemnization of the marriage and defence has demolished that fact by filing the marriage card, perusal of which indicate that marriage was solemnized in the year 1991 and resultantly, the date on which incident had occurred, seven years had already lapsed and hence recourse to presumption under Section 113 B, Evidence Act could not have been taken recourse to convict appellants u/Ss 304 B, IPC. Further contentions is that marriage is allegated to have been solemnized on 28.6.93, on which date there was no auspicious day (Lagan) to perform marriage and hence allegation that marriage was solemnized on that date is false. It was further submitted that according to PW2 marriage was performed in Hindi calender month of Jeth where as PW3 deposed that it was in the month of Ashadh. There is no convincing evidence and material for charge of demand of dowry nor there is any evidence that the said demand was made soon before death and hence on unsatisfactory evidences of fact witnesses and scanty materials in that respect, which too remains unsubstantiated from any independent source, conviction under that offence u/S. 498A is also liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that lagan patri produced and relied upon by prosecution is a sham document and that too is a photocopy, which too was not got proved in consonance with provisions of Evidence Act therefore it cannot be considered to hold appellants guilty. Photocopy of a document is inadmissible in evidence unless requirements of leading secondary evidence is satisfied and since that has not been done by the prosecution therefore said Lagan Patri, cannot be utilised by the prosecution against the appellants and consequently trial Judge committed error in relying upon it. Contrary to prosecution evidence voter list filed by the defence indicates that in the years 1991 name of the deceased as wife of A2 was entered in the voter list and therefore, it must be presumed that their marriage was solemnized more than seven years ago and in such a view, charge under Section 304 B, IPC must fail. It was further contended that trial Judge ignored to consider relevant materials on record supporting defence version and wrongly relied upon prosecution documents and hence it''s conclusions are lopsided. It without critical appreciation of evidences tendered by the prosecution in a dispassionate manner it has convicted appellants and therefore impugned order suffers from the vice of none application of mind as well and deserves to be set aside and the appeals should be allowed and appellants be acquitted of all the charges. It was also submitted that PW 1 did not support prosecution case and was declared hostile. It argued that because deceased was unable to give birth to a son, she was dejected and mentally traumatized, therefore she, committed suicide and appellants have been falsely implicated. It was also argued that once, at the time of her Bidai eight days prior to her death demand of dowry of buffalo was satisfied, there was no occasion to commit her murder. Concludingly it was submitted that appellants be acquitted of all charges and their appeals be allowed.

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that guilt of the appellants have been established beyond doubt and both the appeals lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments by both the sides and have perused the trial Court record. In this appeal it is not disputed that deceased Kiran Devi lost her life in an unnatural circumstances in the house of the appellants in the intervening night between 30/31.5.2000 because of sustained extensive burn injuries and at the time of her death she had a female child. Age of the deceased had also not been challenged by the defence and therefore on the date of her demise she was twenty six years of age. Spouses relationship between A2 and the deceased is also not disputed. On such admitted facts, the real bone ''of contention between rival sides firstly is the period of marriage as to bring the offence within the ambit of section 304 B, IPC and secondly whether there was any demand of dowry because of which deceased was murdered.

Starting from the begged first question it transpires that prosecution version of nuptial tie being knotted between deceased and A2 within seven years seems to be a truthful version. It is an adage that marriages are made in heaven. Informant had given photocopy of lagan patrika to P.W.6 Jagdish Sharma, Circle Officer during course of investigation, which is clear from the perusal of the case diary. P.W.2 informant was subjected to searching crossexamination on the said lagan patrika. Defence could not muster courage to challenge authenticity of preparation of such a document. It did not produce any other document to rebut the claim by the prosecution. This fact shows that the defence was aware of existence of said lagan patrika as being a genuine document. While crossexamining informant P.W.2 on the contents of lagan patrika defence itself brought on the record those missing links which were not divulged by the prosecution. In such a view, appellants now can not take a somersault and deny existence of said lagan patrika. Learned senior counsel strenuously harangued that entries made in lagan Patrika including marriage date was a subsequent interpolation after obtaining a blank copy of the same but he failed to point out any specific reason for the same. To refute prosecution allegations, defence miserably failed to bring on record original lagan patrika, which according to the claim by the informant was in their possession. Since original being possessed by accused, photocopy of the same was admissible in evidence and a presumption can be drawn in favour of the photocopy so tendered by the informant which forms the part of the case diary to be a genuine document. Learned D.G.C., who conducted the trial was not oblivious of his responsibility as a prosecutor and therefore, he committed mistake in not getting the said photocopy exhibited as a secondary evidence. Date of marriage in the said lagan patrika is entered as 28th June, 1993, which fact had been deposed in the trial by informant and therefore the said fact stand established by the prosecution witness. The said date corroborates with the age of the female child as according to prosecution claim daughter was born after five or six years of the marriage. On the contrary, marriage card filed by the appellants, do not inspire any confidence as it does not contain necessary informations required to be mentioned there. It is very interesting to note that there is no date for Bidai mentioned in the said marriage card. Otherwise also, appellants have not got the said marriage card proved. If the appellants were sure about the genuineness of their marriage invitation card they could have got it proved by entering into witness box. No date of marriage has been mentioned by the appellants either in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. or anywhere else. They want date of the marriage to be fathomed out on surmises. Once charged u/S. 304 B, IPC, it was defence responsibility to negate pleaded ingredients of said charge. It was it''s responsibility to demolish prosecution case on preponderance of probability, once prosecution had alleged categorical assertions bringing it''s case within the mischief of section 304B, IPC to which presumption under section 113 B applied, but it miserably failed to discharge it''s burden. Since, through crossexamination, defence has brought on record the material to indicate that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with A2 on 28.2.1993, they cannot now be allowed to argue to the contrary. In above view, first submission raised by learned senior counsel is unappealing, does not find force and is therefore repelled.

Turning towards another argument regarding demand of dowry and causing of death because of nonfulfillment thereof, it is to be noted that prosecution case from it''s inception is that all the accused demanded it. However, summation of evidences of fact witnesses reveal that so far as A2 and fatherin law Hakim Singh, since dead, are concerned there are specific allegations against them. For rest of the accused A1 and A3 there are omnibus general allegations of unconvincing nature. It was Hakim Singh, fatherinlaw, who had gone to the house of the informant to bring back the deceased. At that time he certainly demanded the aforesaid dowry and that is why, a pair of buffaloes and goats were handed over to him and that moment informant had also pleaded to him with folded hands that he may take the aforesaid live stocks but should not torture his daughter nor she be assaulted. During trial, P.Ws.2 and 3 have supported the said allegations. Informant P. W.2 went on to depose that fatherinlaw had even informed him that he can accept the aforesaid livestock in lieu of motorcycle. At that time fatherinlaw was accompanied by his brother as well. Thus, so far as demand of dowry is concerned, prosecution witnesses have successfully established that charge in respect of the husband, A2 and fatherinlaw, since dead. In such a view, it is not difficult to separate their case from rest of the accused and to conclude that so far as appellant Satya Prakash A2 is concerned he did demand dowry and charge u/S. 498 A is established against him to the hilt. But so far as A1 and A3 are concerned from the evidences of fact witnesses of P. Ws. 2 and 3 it is difficult to conclude that they also demanded dowry. PW 1 had turned hostile and negated prosecution version of demand made by any of the accused. He even denied recorded statement u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. to the investigating officer. Nothing concrete and tangible had been brought on record by the prosecution witnesses but for ipse dixit of P.Ws. 2 and 3, who are close relatives of the deceased and interested and partisan witnesses that they also demanded the dowry. A single line statement of the informant that motherinlaw had said that if he will not fulfill the demand, they will not keep the deceased with them is not acceptable as said deposition does not inspire any confidence and was an embellishment and the same was testified for the first time during trial without it being disclosed to the I.O. during in vestigation. Moreover, Savitri Devi was an aged lady of 60 years. So far as motorcycle is concerned, the same was of no use to her. In such a view, I am of the opinion that so far as charge of dowry demand against A1 and A3 are concerned, the same is embellished and a disproved fact.

Death of the deceased was unnatural, which is an admitted fact as even according to defence version deceased had committed suicide by soaking herself with kerosene oil. Appellant counsel also did not challenged said ingredient of the offense and therefore said aspect needs no further probing.

Coming to the defence plea that deceased committed suicide because she was unable to conceive a male child and was suffering from mental stress and trauma is not appealing to juristic thoughts for too many reasons. Deceased was just 26 years of age and there is no evidence on record at all that there was any medical opinion that she could not have attained motherhood on any subsequent occasion. She had never aborted nor there is any medical report in her respect supporting defence case. Thus there was no reason for the deceased to be dejected on such a score, which situation, in fact, never existed. No deeper scrutiny therefore is required as, on the face of it, pleaded defence case is liable to be rejected. If the deceased was physically fit to give birth to a female child, there was no reason for her, at the young age of 26 years, to be dejected because of nonconceiving of a male child. Concludingly defence version does not inspire any confidence and is therefore thrown over board.

Another important aspect of the appeal is plea of alibi by A3 from the scene of the incident on the date and time of the incident. A3 had taken a defence that he was living at his dairy along with his family members. For that purpose D.W. 1, was also examined by the appellants to testify that fact. Prosecution, albeit cross examined DW1 at length, failed even to suggest to DW1 that alibi of A3 deposed by him is a false claim. Standard and process of critical appreciation of evidences of prosecution and defence witness is identical and no double scales and standard can be applied for the same. Evidence of witnesses of both sides have to be scanned on the same touchstone of probability and probity. Since, the prosecution has not challenged defence witness on the plea of alibi of A3, which he had pleaded in his statement u/S. 313 Cr.P.C, the benefit of the same has to be conferred on A3.

Turning towards another significant feature of the case that no demand was made soon before her death by two appellants,it is noted that prosecution evidence of fact witnesses fall short of establishing said fact. As mentioned above but for a single line statement by motherin law, there is no other evidence to rope in A1 and A3 with that charge of demand of dowry and causing of deceased death. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan: AIR 2010 SC 3391 as follows :

"On the other hand, the evidence of PW4 is clear that Amar Singh used to taunt her that she has come from a hungry house. Thus, there was evidence in the case of Amar Singh about his exact conduct which caused harassment to the deceased but there was no such evidence in the case of Jagdish and Gordhani. A prosecution witness who merely uses the word "harassed" or "tortured" and does not describe the exact conduct of the accused which, according to him, amounted to harassment or torture may not be believed by the Court in cases under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. For this reason, the High Court has taken a view that the charges against Jagdish and Gordhani have not been established beyond reasonable doubt and that their case is distinguishable from that of Amar Singh and that Jagdish and Gordhani appear to have been implicated because they were members of Amar Singh''s family."

It has further been held in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others AIR 2000 SC 2324 as follows :

"5. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 that his clients, namely, Ramesh Kumar, brother of the husband, Ram Pyari, mother of the husband and Bharti sisterinlaw of the husbandaccused cannot be alleged to be involved in the commission of the crime and were rightly acquitted by the High Court. There is no evidence produced by the appellant worth the name against the aforesaid respondents. Even PW Nos. 5 and 6 have not brought on record any incriminating circumstance attributable to the aforesaid accused which could be made the basis for their conviction. Ram Kishan, PW5 in his deposition before the Court had stated that "after the marriage Rakesh Kumar, accused raised a demand of Rs. 15,000/ for a scooter and refrigerator. We fulfilled that demand by giving Rs. 20,000/ to him for scooter and refrigerator.......Rakesh Kumar used to threaten Sunita that she would be done to death because of having inadequate dowry. On 21st September, 1988 Sunita had come to my younger brother Tarsem in connection with a ceremony concerning his son. She also visited us as the house of Tarsem Kumar is close to our house. She stayed with us for the night. We gave her customary present i.e. clothes etc. and cash amount of Rs. 500/. She apprehended danger to her life in the house of her inlaws and was not willing to go there". He has not referred to any demand of dowry or harassment by the respondents except Rakesh Kumar. Tarsem Kumar, the other brother of the deceased at whose residence she had gone on 21st September, 1988 has not been produced as a witness in the case. Kans Raj PW6, the father of the deceased stated before the trial Court that Sunita Kumari had told him that she was being taunted by her motherinlaw Ram Piari, accused Ramesh Chander and his wife Bharti accused besides her husband Rakesh Kumar. The details of the alleged taunting have not been spelt out. The only thing stated is that the accused used to tell the deceased that she being the daughter of BJP leader, who used to boast about his financial position had brought inadequate dowry. He further stated that various sums of money and the colour TV was given to Rakesh Kumar on his demand. Amar Nath and Janak Raj, President and General Secretary of Mahajan Sabha respectively and one Kundan lal Gaba were taken by him to the residence of the accused persons. The deceased was alleged to have been taunted again in presence of the aforesaid witnesses. However, none of the aforesaid witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence that respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of respondent No. 2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the inlaws or the other relations cannot in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the inlaws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."

Concluding the discussion and this judgment, Criminal Appeal of Savitri Devi and Ramesh, A1 and A3, being Criminal Appeal No. 1222 of 2006, deserves to be allowed whereas the appeal of appellant Satya Prakash, A2, being Criminal Appeal No. 2375 of 2006, deserves to be dismissed.

In view of above, the appeal of appellants Ramesh and Savitri Devi, A1 and A3,. being Criminal Appeal No. 1222 of 2006 is allowed and conviction and sentence of those appellants on both the counts are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of both the charges under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. They are on bail, they need not surrender, their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.

Appeal of appellant Satya Prakash, A2, being Criminal Appeal No. 2375 of 2006, is dismissed in full. His conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Judge does not require any interference by this Court and is hereby confirmed. A2 is in jail he shall remain incarcerated there to serve out remaining part of his sentence.

Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial Court for it''s intimation and future action.