- (1.) 1. The accused appellants, respectively the son and the mother, were charged for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found them guilty. On appeal the High Court has found charge under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act not substantiated against the accused appellants and acquitted them by allowing the appeal in that regard. However, the conviction under Section 306 Indian Penal Code has been maintained alongwith sentence of four years R.I. each. Feeling aggrieved, the accused appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
(2.) The deceased Shanti Kumari Rai was married to accused appellant - Bipin Kumar Rai in the month of May, 1984. According to the prosecution, articles worth Rs. 4,000/- and cash to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- were given by way of dowry to the in-laws. However, the in-laws persisted in demanding further dowry. The deceased - Shanti Kumari was not allowed to go back to her parents' house by the in-laws unless and until an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in cash and a new motorcycle was given to them. On 20th April, 1986, the marriage of brother of the deceased was fixed. For that purpose, Ram Dev Rai - P.W.-8, father of the deceased; Ram Charitar Rai - P.W.-1, father's uncle of the deceased; Ram Narayan Rai - P.W.-2, a neighbour of P.W.-8; and Ram Bishesh Rai - P.W.-3, son-in-law of Ram Dev Rai had gone to take the deceased so that she could participate in her brother's marriage. The two appellants did not allow her to go. On the same day, Shanti Kumari died an unnatural death. The factum of death was reported to police. At the time of death, the two appellants and their servant Sant Lal Mahto were to be found in the house. All the three were arrested. After investigation the challan, complaining of commission of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was filed. On trial, Sant Lal Mahto was acquitted by the trial court.
(3.) Insofar as charge under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the accused appellants have been acquitted of the charge and therefore, we need not deal with the facts and the evidence relating thereto. We will confine ourselves to dealing with the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence relevant to this charge consists of statements of four witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, 2, 3 and 8. Taking the statements of these four witnesses at their face value, all that these witnesses have stated is that they had gone to take Shanti Devi but she was not allowed to go with them by the accused appellants. The exact reason for which the deceased was not allowed to accompany her father and others is doubtful inasmuch as according to Ram Dev Rai, P.W.-8, himself the two accused appellants had refused the deceased Shanti Kumari to accompany them by saying that she was ill and having said so the two appellants and their servant - Sant Lal Mahto had closed the door. They were not allowed to meet the deceased and, therefore, they returned back;