Allahabad High Court
Smt.Bhulana And Another. vs State Of U.P. on 3 August, 2023
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51030 RESERVED Court No.13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 150 of 1999 Appellant :- Smt.Bhulana And Another. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- G.K.Singh,P Chakrabarti Counsel for Respondent :- Government Advocate Along with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 168 of 1999 Appellant :- Ram Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- G.K.Singh,Purnendu Chakravarty,Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Government Advocate Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
(1) Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Vivek Gupta and Shri Alok Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
(2) Four accused persons, namely, Ram Naresh Prajapati, Smt. Bhulana, Smt. Kalawati and Ram Kumar Prajapati, were tried by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 1993 : State Vs. Ram Naresh Prajapati and 3 others, arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 1992, under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chanda, District Sultanpur.
(3) During pendency of the trial, co-accused, namely, Ram Naresh Prajapati, died and as such, his trial stood abated by the order of trial Court dated 30.11.1998.
(4) Vide judgment and order dated 20.03.1999, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Sultanpur, convicted and sentenced three accused persons, namely, Smt. Bhulana, Smt. Kalawati and Ram Kumar Prajapati, in the manner as enumerated hereinbelow :-
"(i) Under section 304B I.P.C. to undergo 10 years' R.I.;
(ii) Under section 498A I.P.C. to undergo 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional one year's R.I.;
(iii) Under section 201 I.P.C. to undergo 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional six months' R.I.; and
(iv) Under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act to undergo six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-.
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently."
(5) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.03.1999, convicts/appellants, Smt. Bhulana and Smt. Kalawati, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1999, whereas convict/appellant, Ram Kumar Prajapati, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 1999.
(6) It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1999, convict/appellant no.1-Smt. Bhulana died and as such Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1999 stood abated on her behalf vide order dated 17.07.2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1999 is only surviving on behalf of convict/appellant no.2-Smt. Kalawati.
(7) Since both the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, this Court is proceeding to decide it by a common judgment.
(8) As per the prosecution case, the niece of the complainant Sitaram (P.W.1), namely, Sursati Devi (deceased), aged about 22 years, got married with Ram Kumar, son of Ram Naresh Prajapati, five years ago in village Amha, Police Statin Chanda, District Sultanpur. After three years of marriage, her gauna took place. In the marriage, the parents of Sursati Devi (deceased) gave Rs.6000/- cash, two tolas of gold, 10 tolas of silver jewellry and kada etc. worth Rs.2000/-. It was agreed during marriage to give television, however, the same could not be given by the parents of the deceased Sursati. After gauna, when Sursati Devi (deceased) went to her in-laws' house, then, her father-in-law Ram Narain, her mother-in-law Smt. Bhulana, her husband Ram Kumar and her sister-in-law Kalawati started misbehaving with her and told her that it was promised by her parents that television would be given in vidai, however, the same has not been given and if she does not get television from her father, she would not be treated well and she will be sent to her parental home. After six month of gauna, Sursati (deceased) came to her maternal home, she told her mother (P.W.3-Smt. Durpati) that all the persons in her matrimonial home asked her that if her parents fail to give television, then, she would be killed. Again in thauna, vidai of Sursati (deceased) was made, however, after that she did not return from matrimonial home to her parents' house. It is further alleged that the family members of the deceased-Sursati went several times to her matrimonial home, however, they did not send her and they were told that they will not allow her to see her face until television is given.
It is alleged by the complainant (P.W.1) that on 16.8.1992 (Sunday), at around 6.30 p.m., accused persons, while committing conspiracy among themselves, killed her girl; threw her in the adjacent pond; took her out in order to hide/conceal the incident; and arranged for cremation. On receipt of the information about the death of her daughter, P.W.3-Smt. Durpati along with her brother Sitaram (P.W.1) went to her in-laws' house and saw that arrangement for cremation of her daughter was done and when she tried to stop, the in-laws of her daughter (deceased-Sursati) became adamant to fight because of that the mother of the deceased (P.W.3) and brother of the deceased (P.W.2) had to return.
(9) On the next day, P.W.3-Smt. Durpati went to the Police Station to report, however, the report was not lodged by the police. Thereafter, maternal uncle of the deceased (complainant, P.W.1-Sitaram) went along with typed copy of the report dated 19.8.1992 before the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur and handed over it to the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur. The Additional Superintendent of Police vide his order dated 9.8.1992 directed the Station House Officer, Chanda to register the case and take necessary action. On the basis of typed copy of the report dated 19.8.1992 (Ext. Ka.1), Head Moharrir Surendra Rai (P.W.4) registered the chik F.I.R. (Ext Ka 4).
(10) The investigation of the case was conducted by Circle Officer, Chanda, namely, R.B.L.Srivastava (P.W.5). After recording the statement of Sitaram (P.W.1) and Ram Das, the Investigating Officer (P.W.5) had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka 6). He also recorded the statement of other witnesses such as Gram Pradhan Raja Ram Chaurasia, who also gave a copy of the inquest to him. According to inquest report, on 16.8.1992, at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased Sursati, who was suffering from epilepsy (mirgi), died due to falling in the pit near the door and at 12:00 noon, the dead body of the deceased was found floating in the pond. Thereafter, villagers gathered and decided that she should be cremated. The panchayatnama, shows the signature of villagers who were present and according to panchnama at that time, the mother of the deceased-Sursati (P.W.2) along with her relative was present. Ext. Ka. 3 is the complaint letter given by P.W.2 regarding the alleged murder of his sister given to Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur dated 9.9.1992. Ext. Ka 2 is the letter dated 1.8.1992 which was addressed to PW2 and written at the instance of deceased Sursati, which refers about cruelty and demand of television and was received through dak (post-office). After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet, which is Ext. Ka 7.
(11) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19.8.1993. The charges were framed under Sections 498A read with Section 34, 304B and 201 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act vide order dated 23.8.1994 against four accused persons, namely, Ram Naresh Prajapati (died during trial), Smt. Bhulana (died), Smt. Kalawati and Ram Kumar Prajapati, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
(12) The prosecution, in support of its case, has produced PW 1 Sitaram, who is maternal uncle of the deceased, PW2 Ram Awadh, who is the brother of deceased, PW3 Durpati, who is mother of the deceased, PW 4 Constable Surendra Rai, who got register the chik F.I.R. and PW 5 R.B.L. Srivastava, who conducted the investigation of the case. The defence has produced D.W.1 Om Prakash and D.W. 2 Raj Bahadur.
(13) The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons were recorded. The accused have said in their statement that the deceased Sursati went for call of nature near the house and due to epileptic, she fell into the pond and died.
(14) P.W.1 Sitaram, who is maternal uncle of the deceased Sursati, deposed before the trial Court that the deceased was married 7 years back with Ram Kumar, son of Ram Naresh and after three years of her marriage, her gauna was happened. In the marriage, Rs. 6,000/- cash, ten tolas silver and Rs.2000/- worth cloths were given. After the vidai, her mother-in-law, husband and sister-in-law started committing cruelty upon her. Ram Kumar (husband of the deceased) used to demand Television repeatedly. After gauna only once vidai of the deceased was done except that the in-laws of the deceased have not sent her daughter to her parents house and used to say that if television is not given then they will not see their daughter alive. Two years back, she was killed and thrown in the pond and information about the death of the deceased was given by the Jeth of the deceased that her daughter has drowned in the pond and died. He further stated that he saw the dead-body of the deceased along with her sister (P.W.3). She (deceased) received injuries. His sister (P.W.3) tried to stop the in-laws of the deceased for not cremating the dead-body of his daughter (deceased) then she was pushed aside and she laid down on the dead body. Then P.W.3 was grabbed and removed from the dead body. He (P.W.1) was also caught-hold by 4-5 persons and dead-body of the deceased was cremated forcibly. He stated that his sister (P.W.3) has not signed the panchnama and made allegation on the police that his correct statement has not been recorded nor the site inspection was done.
In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he only once went to the house of the accused. He felt difficulty in telling the distance of the dead body from the house of the deceased. He admitted that he was not present during the marriage. He had no clue about the demand of dowry. He told that only information he has, is hearsay as told by his sister and brother-in-law. He further stated that he saw the injuries of the deceased, however, this fact was not mentioned in the First Information Report. He further denied his statement written by the Investigating Officer/Circle Officer. He further stated that his niece Sursati (deceased) was not literate. He also denied the suggestion given by the defence that some panchnama was written and on which his sister was signed.
(15) P.W.2 Ram Awadh Prajapati, who is the real brother of the deceased, had deposed before the trial Court that the marriage of her sister (deceased) took place with Ram Kumar about 7 years ago in the year 1988. In the examination-in-chief, he reiterated the prosecution version that after three years of marriage, gauna took place. He also deposed that it was agreed to give television to the in-laws (accused) and due to that the deceased was killed by the accused persons. He stated that there was persistent demand of television by the accused persons and he was told that if television was not given, she will be killed. The deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons for television. He went for vidai of his sister, however, accused persons told him that till the television is not given they will not do the vidai. Only once vidai was done. When his sister came to his home then she told that unless she is given television, she will be subjected to cruelty. Regarding the cruelty and demand of television, his sister (deceased) wrote him a letter which was given to him when he returned from Haryana. It is dated 1.8.1992 (Ext. Ka.2).
In the cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that he is High School fail and works in Delhi. He has further stated that he came to know about the demand of television in the marriage, however, has not taken any action regarding the demand of dowry. His sister was illiterate. He further stated that he is not aware as to who has written the letter. No panchyat was called before the death of his sister. At the time of incident, he was at Haryana and he went to Haryana twenty days before the death of the deceased. He often used to receive the complaint, however, he received only one letter. He denied the suggestion that while going to attend the call of nature, she fell in the pond and due to that she died. He further denied the suggestion that due to dowry, she has not been killed.
(16) P.W.3-Durpati, who is the mother of the deceased, stated that at the time of the marriage, the deceased was 16 years old and after three years of marriage, gauna took place. Television was agreed to be given in the marriage, however, she could not give. She stated that elder brother of the husband Ram Kumar told her that her daughter is missing since 4'O clock. After ten minutes, another elder brother of the accused Ram Kumar told her that her daugher drowned in the water and died. She informed her brother and along with him, she went to the village Amha and saw the dead body of her daughter and laid on the dead body. The dead body was kept besides the pond. She saw the injuries on the deceased. She and her brother were removed from the dead body. She is not aware where they took the dead body. They returned at the house of the accused at about 6.00 p.m. It was dark. After seeing Ext. Ka 2, she stated that it is the same letter which was sent by the deceased. She stated that she could not give the letter to Investigating Officer/Circle Officer as his son took it and went away. She stated that in front of her, no panchnama took place. She denied the thumb impression on Paper no. 7/4 kha. She further stated that it was not prepared in front of her. She made allegations on the Investigating Officer.
In the cross-examination, she has stated that the deceased was illiterate. She stated that she could not give the letter written by her daughter to the Investigating Officer as it was taken by her son to Delhi. She denied the suggestions that her daughter did not give any letter to her. She further denied the suggestions that she is not recognizing her thumb impression on the panchnama.
(17) P.W. 4 is a formal witness and has proved Ext. Ka. 4 and Ka 5.
(18) P.W. 5 is the Investigating Officer, who has proved Ext.Ka.5, Ext. Ka7, site plan Ext. Ka 6.
(19) DW1-Om Prakash Singh is the fellow villager. He stated that the body was kept beside the pond. Several villagers were present. The mother and 4-6 relatives of the deceased were also present and panchnama was prepared in front of him. He admitted preparation of panchnama Ext. Kha 1 and further identified his signature upon the panchnama. He further stated that Gram Pradhan Raja Ram Chaurasia was also present and panchnama bears his signature as well. He stated that there was no injury found on the dead body.
(20) DW 2-Raj Bahadur, another villager, stated that the dead body was kept beside the pond and at that time, villagers were present. The mother and other relatives of the deceased were also present. The panchnama was prepared in his presence and signed by him. He stated that it is written in the panchnama that the deceased died due to drowning in the pond. He further stated that all the persons unanimously decided for cremation of the deceased. He identified the panchnama and stated that it was written by the village pradhan and also proved his signature and proved the preparation of the documents before him.
(21) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged letter dated 1.8.1992 was not produced during investigation by any prosecution witnesses. It was not part of the investigation. The incident took place on 16.8.1992. He submits that Ext. Ka 2 and Ka. 3 produced before the trial Court by the P.W.2 are not permissible under Section 91 and 230 Cr.P.C. He submits that panchnama prepared and exhibited as Kha 1 duly proved by D.W.1 and DW2 is not inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. It is the document (panchnama) which is commonly prepared by the village Pradhan in the village to settle various issues and it is a prevalent practice in village and has been proved by DW1 and DW2. The letter sent by the deceased dated 1.8.1992 cannot be said to be proved during trial for want of Sections 91, 230 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. He submits that trial court has not discharged his obligation under Section 165 of the Evidence Act nor to ascertain the demand of television, which is highly improbable considering both the families were poor and in the year 1992 there was no electricity in the remote villages. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgement of Fakhruddin vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR1967 SC 1236.
(22) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed and have submitted that the deceased died within seven years of marriage. From the statement of PW 1, 2 and 3, it is clear that she was subjected to cruelty and that cruelty was regarding demand of dowry and therefore it shall be presumed that it is a case of dowry death and the onus was on the accused to show their innocence, which they have failed.
(23) This Court has examined the submissions advanced by the parties and gone through record.
(24) It is not disputed that the marriage of the deceased took place in the year 1988 with accused Ram Kumar. The letter dated 1.8.1992 allegedly sent by the deceased to her maternal home address was not produced during investigation by anyone. The incident took place on 16.8.1992. The information was received by the mother and other relative of the deceased who came to see the incident and saw the dead body kept on the bank of the pond. Panchnama though it is not inquest report as per Section 174 Cr.P.C, was prepared by 15-20 villagers in the presence of village pradhan with his seal and signature and thumb impression and signatures of other villagers and the same also bears the thumb impression of the mother of the deceased. The panchnama was prepared according to prevalent custom to settle various issues by the Gram Pradhan. It has been proved as Kha 1 by DW1 and DW 2.
(25) It is also admitted that the mother of the deceased returned to her home and no First Information report was registered on 16.8.1992. After three days of the incident, a typed complaint was given by PW1 (maternal uncle of the deceased) to the Superintendent of Police alleging the demand of dowry and dowry death. Still there was no mention of letter dated 1.8.1992 written by the deceased in the typed complaint. It is alleged in the complaint dated 19.8.1992 given by PW1 that he has seen the dead body kept on pyre for cremation as stated in the typed complaint. On that basis First Information Report came to be lodged only on 9.9.1992 as Crime No. 264 of 1992 against the appellants i.e. the husband, father-in-law (expired in the year 1998), mother-in-law (expired in the year 2011) and sister-in-law.
(26) So far as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he visited appellant's house only once i.e. after the incident along with mother of the deceased. Several villagers were present around the body when he reached the spot of the incident. He was not present during marriage of the deceased. He stated that he had seen the injury on the body of the deceased, however, did not say in the F.I.R. He further stated that the deceased was illiterate and mother of the deceased informed him about the incident. He, in cross- examination, has stated that he had no personal knowledge about the demand of dowry and the same was told to him by the mother and father of the deceased, hence evidence deposed by the P.W. 1 can only be hearsay evidence, which is not admissible in law and as such, no relevance can be placed on this evidence.
(27) P.W. 2, although in the examination-in-chief, has stated that dowry was demanded and deceased was subjected to harassment. When he went to Haryana 20 days prior to the date of incident i.e. sometimes in the last week of July, he recived information of the incident via registered post from his house. When he returned from Haryana, he got to know from his family that the deceased has written letter dated 1.8.1992. The letter of the deceased produced during the court proceedings as Ext. Ka 2 and letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police as Ext. Ka. 3 before the trial court during his evidence cannot be treated as admissible as the same have not been produced under Section 91 and 230 Cr.P.C.. He in the cross- examination has stated that police did not inquire from him about the letter of the deceased. The letter was received by the mother of the deceased who gave it to him when he returned home from Haryana.
In the cross-examination, PW2 has stated that though demand made in marriage but did not report about it to any officer. The deceased was illiterate and he was unable to tell that who is the author of the letter sent by the deceased. At the time of the incident, he was not present as he was in Haryana and went there 20 days prior to the date of incident.
(28) P.W. 3, who is the mother of the deceased, in her examination-in-chief made allegation regarding demand of dowry in marriage for television. Appellant's elder brother informed her that the deceased was missing. Appellant's eldest brother informed her that dececased died due to drowning in pond. She went at the place of incident alongwith her brother and saw the dead body kept beside the pond. She stated that the deceased sent a letter to her and the same was given to PW2. The brother of the deceased kept the letter with himself and then took with him to Delhi. She stated that no panchnama was prepared before him and her thumb impression shown in the panchnama is false.
(29) At this stage, it is relevant to note that Section 73 of the Evidence Act empowers the Court to compare writings with specimen or admitted documents. The phrase 'admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the court' used in section 73 contemplates that the specimen document taken for comparison of writing or signature in the purported document must be undisputed one and all parties to the dispute must admit the specimen signature or writing in the base document. In case one party refuses to admit, or disputes the specimen document, it is incumbent on the Court to first satisfy that the signature or writing on the specimen document is proved to be of the person concerned and only then proceed for comparison with the purported document.
(30) In the present case, the trial Court with exhibit document had forgotten to take note of this basic requirement under Section 73 of the Evidence Act as the trial Court has failed to compare such thumb impression with the other thumb impression of the P.W. 3.
(31) DW1 has identified his signature on the panchnama and admitted the preparation of Ext. kha 1 (panchnama) in front of him. He also stated that panchnama bears the signature of Gram Pradhan.
(32) DW2 also identified the panchnama and the paper and also stated that it was written by the village pradhan. He also proved his signature and also proved preparation of the panchnama before him.
(33) It is true that once such initial burden is discharged by prosecution, initial presumption of innocence of accused would get replaced by deemed presumption of guilt by proving beyond reasonable doubt his innocence vide Sher Singh vs. State of Haryana : (2015) 3 SCC 724. The initial burden is on the prosecution to prove by preponderance of probability. The ingredient of Section 304-B I.P.C. once such initial burden is discharged by the prosecution and they are able to show that the deceased died otherwise then in normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, soon before death she was to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry only then the husband or his relative who subjected the deceased to such cruelty or harassment can be presumed to be guilty of offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code vide Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2001) 8 SCC 633.
(34) The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death, therefore, no presumption to be guilty of the offence under Section 304-B can be taken against the appellant vide State of Haryana vs. Angoori Devi, (2020) 18 SCC 773.
(35) In case of Baijnath and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2016 SC 5313, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death.
(36) While summing up the evidence produced by the prosecution, it appears that there is prima facie no evidence of cruelty upon the deceased soon before her death. So far as the demand of dowry is concerned, it cannot be said to be duly proved and merely general assertions of demand of dowry have been made, which too was not proved. The presence of PW1 and PW3 on the spot is admitted. The preparation of panchnama and paper Ext. Kha 1 has been duly proved by DW1 and DW2, who have confirmed their signatures and signature of the others. This document was produced with the case diary and in view of the unanimous decision of the villagers and the guidance of the village Pradhan, cremation appears to have been taken place. Ext. Ka 2 and Ka 3 could not have been relied on by the learned trial Court as they are not admissible evidence for want of compliance of Section 91 and Section 230 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. The order dated 7.11.1994 of the trial court depicts that there is no judicial order passed by the trial court for these two documents to be produced in accordance to Section 91 and Section 230 Cr.P.C. hence for this reason the trial Court could not have relied on these two documents produced during evidence. The prosecution witness of fact, namely, PW.1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have denied their statements recorded during investigation in totality and have also criticized police for unfair investigation. The version of the case diary is different from the version of the court statements and after the denial of their statement given to the police by PW 1, 2 and 3, the prosecution has not confirmed them. In the site plan, no electric poll has been shown. The duty incumbent upon the trial court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act is to ascertain the demand of television when admittedly both families were poor villager and in the year 1992, there was no electricity connection in the house of the villagers normally. No evidence that accused were having electricity connection has been led by the prosecution, which seems that there is lack of evidence for demand of dowry for television.
(37) All the aforesaid facts make the defence version of the accused persons very probable. Despite these all the facts, the prosecution witnesses have been improving upon their version with a manifest reason. The evidence of the prosecution is full of material contradictions, infirmity and defects running all throughout. It would be very risky to rely upon such evidence for conviction. The explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused persons and the version of their defence are quite probable.
(38) In criminal cases, it is often difficult for courts of law to arrive at the real truth. The judicial process can only operate on the firm foundations of actual and credible evidence on record. Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty of proving its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Courts of justice cannot be swayed by sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of the very reprehensible crime. If the pieces of evidence on which the prosecution closes to rest its case are so brittle that they crumble easily, the superstructure built on such insecure foundations also collapses.
(39) It is also well settled that there are two important factors in every criminal trial that weigh heavily in favour of the accused person, one is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt and that when the accused person offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct then even though he cannot prove his assertion, they should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that they are false.
(40) In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden and the presumption if any available to prosecute as under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act have also been rebutted by the evidence on record.
(41) Having regards to the facts and the evidence adduced in this case, it has been proved that the death of the deceased has been caused under otherwise than normal circumstances and that such death had occurred within 7 years of her marriage. But, it has not been proved that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband and that such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry. It is also not proved that the husband or his relatives, by their willful conduct created a situation which they knew would drive the deceased to commit suicide. Moreso, the prosecution did not examine any neighbour of the appellants to substantiate the allegation of hurried disposal of the body.
(42) On due consideration to the submission advanced and evidence on record, it is clear that prosecution has not been able to prove the ingredients of Section 304B, 498A, 201 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for holding the accused/appellants guilty for the offense of dowry death.
(43) For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.1999 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Sultanpur, is hereby set-aside. Appellants, Smt. Kalawati and Ram Kumar Prajapati, are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bond are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
(44) Both the appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
(45) Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be transmitted to the court concerned for information and further necessary action.
Order Date : 3.8. 2023 Madhu/-