Judgment:
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.3.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 283 of 1999, whereby the appellant No. 10, namely, Mallik Prasad Soni has been found guilty for committing offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for the said offence for a period of 10 years, whereas rests of 9 appellants, namely, Devanand Prasad Soni @ Devanand Soni, Sewa Prasad Soni, Bhuneshwar Prasad, Dilip Kumar Soni, Basanti Devi, Chandrika Devi, Mala Devi, Madhuri Devi and, Raju Prasad Soni have been found guilty only under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years.
2. In short, the prosecution case as per the first information report registered on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Madhusudan Verma (P.W.5) is that his niece Deepa Devi was married with the appellant No. 10, namely, Mallik Prasad Soni in the year 1993 according to the Hindu Rites and Customs. In the marriage he gave dowry according to his capacity. His niece was kept well in her Sasural for one year, but thereafter members of her in-laws including father in law Bhuneshwar Prasad Soni, mother in law, brother in law (Bhaisur) and other relatives started Ill-treating and torturing her by beating and they also stopped giving food and clothes and she was compelled to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her Naihar, otherwise she was threatened to be killed. She was telling them that her father has no so much of money, on this they used to assault her, for which she had been sending information to her parents place from time to time. Whenever the Naihar people of the deceased used to complain about this act, they used to give reply that they should pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to their son i.e. appellant No. 10, so that he may start his shop. At one time she had been sent back to her Naihar place after assault and they were not prepared to take her back. After some persuation she had been taken back and, thereafter, it is alleged that about 3 1/2 years prior to the date of occurrence a daughter was born to the deceased. She was sent back to her Naihar and they had told the parents of the deceased that she will be taken back only on payment of of Rs. 50,000/-. Although the informant and his family members did not want to send her back to her in laws place but appellant No. 10 took her back to his place. On information about the birth of the second daughter the informant and his family members went to meet the deceased but she was not allowed to meet. The elder daughter of the deceased was also telling them that her mother was being assaulted by the accused persons. On 18.10.1998 the informant got information from his nephew Pawan Kumar that the deceased has been burnt by her in laws at their place and that she was admitted in the hospital. On receipt of such information the informant along with his relatives went to the hospital and found the deceased dead with burn injuries on her person. Thereafter the statement was recorded by the police and on the basis of the fardbeyan a case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against all the appellants and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against them for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, charges were framed against all of them for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian penal Code.
3. In order to establish the charges altogether 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution; out of whom P.W.1 is Ramesh Kumar Verma, P.W.2 is Basuki Prasad Verma, P.W.3 is Gokhul Prasad Verma, P.W.4 is Md. Taiyab Mian, P.W.5 is Madhusudan Verma (informant of the case), P.W.6 is Dr. Binod Kumar, whe has conducted postmortem report on the dead body of the deceased, P.W.7 is Shankar Bouri, P.W.8 is Dushyanta Prasad Sinha, P.W.9 is Dharmaraj Ram, P.W. 10 is Rajendra Prasad Singh, S.I., P.W.11 is Mina Devi, P.W.12 Sukh Narayan Verma, P.W.13 is Amit Kumar Verma whereas P.W. 14 is Krishna Ram, Investigating Officer of the case.
4. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and materials on record adduced during the trial convicted and sentenced the appellants as already stated herein above. The trial Court convicted the appellant No. 10, Mallik Prasad Soni for committing offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and rests of the 9 appellants were found guilty for committing offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. From the postmortem report as well as from the evidence of Doctor P.W.6), it appears that the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was performed on 19.10.1998 and the Doctor found the deceased to be aged about 25 years and the following antemortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased:
1. Partial to full thickness skin deep bum seen all over the body except top of head broken blisters seen here and there all over the burnt parts. Soot deposition seen on the upper part of trunk, neck and face.
2. Vencseection cut wounds seen on the anterior aspects of both elbows. No other external injury found.
Cause of death shown by doctor to be due to aforementioned extensive burn injuries (Injury No. 1)
6. Mr. Shikarwar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the defence does not challenge the factum of death of the deceased under unnatural circumstances. He submitted that it was an accidental death since stove burst at the time the deceased was cooking of food. He further submitted that the evidence on record does not show that prior to the death of the deceased any demand of dowry was made and there is no evidence on record to show that she was ever ill-treated or tortured because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
7. In order to test the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, I have minutely gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Ramesh Kumar Verma has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has specifically stated in his evidence that when he went to the in laws place of Deepa Devi (deceased) he found her lying dead in severe burnt condition. Thereafter he sent his nephew to Barkakana to inform the father of the deceased and on arrival of them an F.I.R. was lodged before the police. He also stated in his evidence that Devanand Prasad Soni @ Devanand Soni and Mallik Prasad Soni were living together in their own house.
P.W.2 Basuki Prasad Verma in his evidence stated that he came to know from Devanand Soni that the deceased Deepa Devi was killed on 18.10.1998 by setting her on fire. On 19.10.1998 all of them went to the hospital where dead body of the deceased was lying. He has further stated in his evidence that marriage of the deceased took place 5 years ago with the appellant No. 10 Mallik Prasad Soni and at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given to him. He further stated that Madhusudan Prasad Verma P.W.5) used to tell him that in laws of Deepa Devi making demand of more dowry, but because of his poor financial condition he was not in a position to fulfill their demands and, therefore, his daughter has been killed for that reason.
P.W.5 is Madhusudan Verma, informant of the case. He has fully supported his statement made in the first information report. He has specifically stated that in laws i.e. accused persons used to demand dowry and due to nonfulfillment thereof the deceased was being ill-treated and tortured.
8. Other oral evidence of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the prosecution are corroborative in nature and I do not find any reason to discard their evidence.
9. I find from the evidence that the factum of unnatural death of the deceased within 7 years of the marriage has been established. Further it has been established that the appellant No. 10 being the husband committed dowry death of his wife because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. There is ample evidence on record to show that soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to ill-treatment and tortured due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, made by the appellants.
10. Therefore, I hold that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion and held the appellant No. 10 guilty for committing offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court further rightly held that the prosecution could establish the charges against the rest of the appellants for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Their conviction and sentence passed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are hereby affirmed.
11. Accordingly, by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellants this appeal is dismissed.
12. From the record it appears that the appellant No. 10, namely, Mallik Prasad Soni has already served out the sentence and, therefore, he must have been released by now. However, in any case if he is still in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
13. So far rests of the 9 appellants, namely, Devanand Prasad Soni @ Devanand Soni, Sewa Prasad Soni, Bhuneshwar Prasad, Dilip Kumar Soni, Basanti Devi, Chandrika Devi, Mala Devi, Madhuri Devi and, Raju Prasad Soni, are on bail and as such their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith in order to serve the remaining part of their sentence.
14. This appeal is dismissed.