High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 90/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A.ANSARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY Heard Mr. P C Dey, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant and Ms. S.Jah an, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28. 4.2012 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No.125/ 2010, corresponding to GR Case No.882/2010, convicting the appellant under Secti ons 302 and 304B IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for lif e and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another one month under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years under Section 304B IPC; with direction that both the sentences should run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, as unfurled from the written FIR filed by one Abedur Rahman, is that soon after solemnization of marriage with his daughte r, the appellant and his family members started demanding a sum of Rs.1 lac and a pulsar motor cycle as dowry and due to failure to fulfill the said demand, th ey tortured and killed his daughter Smti Jafrine Aktar by hanging inside their h ouse. The police received the FIR and registered the Morigoan P.S.Case No.119/10 under Section 304B/34 IPC. The IO, Tarun Ch.Kalita (PW-9), conducted the invest igation. During the investigation he visited the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch map thereof, got the inquest over the dead body held by Circle Officer (SDC) and also got the post mortem examination conducted in the Morigaon Civil H ospital on 22.8.2010. The IO recorded the statement of the witnesses and after collection of the post mortem report, submitted the charge-sheet against the pr esent appellant only, without sending up the names of other three accused perso ns, under Section 304B IPC. On committal of the case by the concerned Magistrate , the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, considered the materials on record and framed charge under Section 302/304B IPC against the present appellant which was read over and explained to him. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly he stood the trial. The prosecution, in order to prove the aforesaid charg 4. es examined as many as 9 witnesses, including the medical officer and the IO , but the appellant declined to examine any witness, although he was examined unde r Section 313 Cr.P.C. and offered a chance to adduce evidence in his defence. Th e learned trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, and on consideration of t he evidence on record and upon hearing the parties, passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned earlier. Being d is-satisfied with and aggrieved by the said judgment and order the appellant has approached this Court in appeal. 5.
Legal Reasoning
The written FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased. He has been examined as PW-2. He has proved the said FIR, Ext.2 and his signature Ext. 2(1). As per his evidence the deceased was his first born daughter and she was m arried to the appellant. As stated by him, the appellant, just after 10/15 days of marriage, started demanding dowry of Rs.1 lac in cash and a motor cycle from her daughter who, in turn, asked him (PW-2) to arrange the same but he could not fulfill the said dowry demand due to his financial unsoundness. Ten days before her death, his daughter informed him about the said dowry demand through his ’n ephew’ over mobile phone. The house of the said nephew is located at a distance of two furlongs from the house of appellant Guljar Ali. On the day of incident, appellant Guljar Ali killed his daughter in a merciless manner. The incident was a sequel to demand of dowry and the accused person told that her daughter had d ied by hanging herself. He visited his daughter’s house and found her lying on t he bed while some women massaging oil over her body. He could not see any sign o f making attempt by the victim to kill herself by hanging. The appellant Guljar used to live with her daughter in the house. In cross-examination he stated that at the time of her marriage his deceased daughter was 13/14 years of age and sh e read up to class-IX. The appellant eloped his daughter. They brought her back home but again the appellant eloped her. Later on an agreement was signed betwee n him (PW-2) and appellant’s mother in the Court on 10.11.09. Both Guljar (appel lant) and deceased were in love. A village meeting was held over the said matter . It was agreed upon that the marriage between Guljar and Jafrine Akhtar would b e solemnized later when Jafrine would attain majority. He sent his daughter to h er maternal uncle’s house but she came back and insisted on solemnization of her marriage with the appellant. She also threatened to commit suicide unless she w as given in marriage to the appellant. He came to know about the appellant’s do wry demand from one Rejia to whom his deceased daughter told over phone. However , he does not remember the date on which she made the phone call. The demand for dowry had been made once in a week and the said Rejia told him (PW-2) about the same at least on 10 occasions. However, he did not take any legal action agains t the dowry demand. He visited the appellant’s house on one occasion only. He do es not like the family members of the appellant as they are all ruffians. During cross-examination, he also stated that he disliked the appellant and his family members because they did not allow his daughter to come home in the Roza month. He did not notice any injury on the person of his deceased daughter. However, h e heard that the appellant used to torture her both physically and mentally. He cannot say how his daughter died but he heard from people that she died by hangi ng. He saw the deceased being taken in a 108 ambulance vehicle to doctor but she had died already. He denied the suggestion that his daughter, being a minor, co mmitted suicide out of extreme grief as he, being the father, did not bring her home nor did he allow her to come home. He lodged no complaint regarding the a PW-3, Nazmin Faruqui, is the younger sister of lleged dowry demand and torture on her daughter. 6. PW-1, Khabdur Rahman, is the cousin of the deceased. His house i s located at a distance of 1 km only from the house of the appellant. He is a re ported witness. He came to know from people that the deceased died by hanging. H e came to the place of occurrence on a bicycle. He found a gathering of a number of people in the courtyard of the appellant. On arrival he found half of her bo dy lying on the cot and another half on the floor. In cross-examination he state d that he did not see how the deceased died by hanging. He heard about the incid ent at about 3 PM. He also heard that the accused assaulted the deceased with a stick. 7. the deceased. She was aged about 7 years only on the date of deposition i.e. on 27.7.2011. She was a student of class-IV. She deposed that her elder sister mar ried to Guljar (appellant). In the afternoon, on the day of occurrence, she had been to her sister’s house to give her sweetmeats. There she met a girl who told her that she did not know where his sister had been. Then she proceeded to her sister’s room but she found it locked. She was asked by the said girl to take a seat. She did not know the name of the said grown up girl. The said girl told he r (PW-3) that she would find out her sister for her. The said girl, thereafter, came back with the mother-in-law of her elder sister, who asked her to bring her parents. She was informed that her sister was no more. She could not meet her s ister. She was produced before a Magistrate who recorded her statements vide Ext .3 which bears her signatures Ext.3(1) and 3(2). On being cross-examined she sta ted that on an earlier occasion she had been to her sister’s house. It was he r second visit to her sister’s house. On that day, police interrogated her. She denied that she told the police that when she visited her sister’s house, she sa w a number of people in the courtyard. She also denied that door of her sister’s room had been locked and that a girl asked her to take a seat assuring her that she would find her elder sister for her. 8. PW-4, Dr. Hiteswar Gogoi, is the medical officer, who held the a utopsy on the dead body of Jafrine on police requisition on 22.8.2010 in the Mor igaon Civil Hospital while he was posted as Senior Medical & Health Officer ther eat. As per his evidence, after post mortem examination, he found the following : (cid:28)(i) Lacerated injury … (cid:29) x … (cid:29) at the right side of fore-head just above lateral angle of right eye with dried blood covering right eye and right face extending to right ear. (ii) A ligature mark of … (cid:29) wide oblique in right side and transverse and circula r in left side with perchmentisation of tissues under it. (iii) Fracture of the upper cervical spine. All internal organs are healthy. (cid:29) On the basis of the said examination he opined that the cause of death w as due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. He proved the post mortem report, Ext .4 and his signatures, Ext.4(1) and Ext. 4(2). On being cross-examined he stated that the dead body was brought to the post mortem room on 21.8.2010 and it was kept there for the night. According to him it was unlikely that lacerated injury could be caused by rats. He denied that the lacerated injury was caused by rats . He, however, stated that he found dry blood but he (cid:28)found no contusion contain ing firm clot or staining of the tissues washing. (cid:29) 9. PW-5, Md. Muktab Ali, is a neighbour of Jafrine. He stated that the dece ased was inside the room and she was (cid:28) struggling inside the room as she was han ging from her churni (cid:29). The deceased (cid:28)was kicking and throwing her arms. People b roke open the door and took her down from a hanging position. (cid:29) The service of 10 8 was requisitioned. She was sent to Hospital. Police came later. Later he heard that she had died in the hospital. She was present when police came and seized the churni. She signed the seizure list Ext.5 and proved her signature, Ext.5(1) . She deposed that she was not having a visiting term with the family of the dec eased and she had no knowledge why the deceased died. She also deposed that she never saw the deceased quarrelling with the appellant so long the appellant and the deceased were living together. In cross-examination also she stated that she did not see any quarrel between the deceased and her husband (appellant) nor di d she hear anything about their quarrel. The deceased was treated by the appell ant in an affectionate manner. She also stated that she did not meet any male me mber at the place of occurrence. They broke the door open, got into the room and brought her down from hanging position. PW-6, Mushab Ali, is the driver of the ambulance vehicle. There 10. is nothing significant in his deposition. PW-7, Lelina Begum, is the wife of app ellant’s brother. She stated that the sister of the deceased came looking for he r. She saw Jafrine in a hanging position who was kicking her legs and hands. See ing the deceased in that position, she shouted. Hearing her shouting, the nearby people came and broke open the door. The deceased Jafrine was then brought down from hanging position. Service of 108 was requisitioned and the deceased was ta ken to hospital at Morigoan. She heard Jafrine had died in the hospital. In cros s examination, she stated that Jafrine has been maintaining good relationship wi th the appellant, his mother, sister etc. She also stated that she did not see a ny body in Jafrine’s room when she was found in hanging state. PW-8, Babulal Hus sain, is the brother of the appellant. As per his evidence he was not present at home on the date of occurrence. He resides in an adjacent house. The incident t ook place at 3 PM in the Ramjan month and on the day of occurrence, all the fami ly members were away from home. On that day Jafrine’s sister came to meet her an d she did not find Jafrine. She was searching for her. In cross examination he s tated that Jafrine was found alive while she was brought down from hanging posit ion. He also stated that he did not know if there was any quarrel between the ap pellant and the deceased. They had love affairs and theirs was a love marriage. The door of the dwelling house was locked from inside. They put oil and massaged over her body to circulate her blood.
Legal Reasoning
PW-9, Sri Tarun Ch. Kalita, is the IO of this case. He deposed 11. that he came to the place of occurrence accompanied by C.O.(SDC). The said CO (S DC) held the inquest and sent the dead body to Morigaon Hospital for post mortem examination. He proved the inquest report, Ext.6 and the signature of the CO (S DC), Ext.6(1). He also prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence, recorde d the statement of the witnesses and seized one churni at the place where deceas ed was found hanging. He proved the said seizure list, Ext.5 and his signature o n it Ext.5(1). He arrested the appellant Guljar Ali and on completion of the inv estigation, filed the charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. In cross-examination, he sated that he was present at the time of holding the in quest. At the time of holding inquest they found no injury on the body of the de We consider it relevant to briefly refer to and quote Section 30 ceased. No mark of injury was also found on the face of the deceased. 12. 4B IPC which deals with punishment relating to dowry death, hereunder : (cid:28)304B. Dowry Death. - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or b odily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven ye ars of her marriage and it is shown that soon after before her death she was s ubjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called (cid:28)do wry death (cid:29), and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her deat h. Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-section, (cid:28)dowry (cid:29) shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term w hich shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. (cid:29) Section 304B IPC has been held to be a substantive provision creating a new offence and not merely a provision effecting a change in the procedure for t rial of a pre-existing substantive offence. 13. The provision of Section 304B IPC has been discussed and conside red by the Apex Court in Kaliyaperumal and Anr. -VS- State of Tamil Nadu, report ed in (2004) 9 SCC 157. In the said judgment it has been held that the essential ingredients attracting Section 304B IPC are that - The death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or other (i) wise than under normal circumstances. (ii) (iii) any relative of her husband. (iv) r dowry and (v) soon after the death. Such a death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand fo Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman In the present case there is no doubt that the victim died by hanging and as such she died an unnatural death under circumstances which is not normal. Her death occurred within few months of her marriage. However, there is no mat erial or legal evidence to prove that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. 14.
Decision
In another case of Ramesh Panjiyar- VS- State of Bihar, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 388, it has been held that the word (cid:28) dowry (cid:29) in Section 304B IP C has to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Ac t, 1961. Under the said provision there are three occasions relating to dowry. O ne is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third (cid:28)at a ny time (cid:29) after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be unending period . But the crucial words are (cid:28)in connection with the marriage of the said partie s. (cid:29) The settled position of law is that a case of (cid:28)suicidal death of a woman wit hin 7 years of marriage (cid:29) is covered by the expression (cid:28) death of a woman is cau sed by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumst ances (cid:29) as expressed in Section 304B IPC. In view of the above law, since Jafrin e, wife of the appellant, was found hanging inside the house and died later in t he hospital, the provision of Section 304B IPC would be attracted in the present case. As per the evidence of the medical officer (PW 4), the victim died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging which shows that she died otherwise than under normal circumstances within a period less than one year after her marriage. 15. The demand for dowry itself is punishable under the law provided such demand is proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Inference can also be drawn from the evidence on record as held in the State of A.P. -VS- Raj Gopal Asawa and Anr., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 470. The legislation has taken a serio us view on the increasing menace of dowry death and with a view to combat with i t, Section 304B IPC and Section 113 B of the Evidence Act were inserted by the D owry Prohibition(Amendment) Act, 1986. In the said case it has been held that pr esumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On pro of of essentials mentioned therein, it has become obligatory on the court to rai se the presumption that the accused caused the dowry death. The essentials requi red to be proved for raising the said presumption have already been mentioned an d quoted in the forgoing paragraph. It must be noted that as per the aforesaid j udgment the prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence, ther e was cruelty or harassment and only in that case the aforesaid presumption woul d operate. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. Following t he decision in Raj Gopal (supra), the Apex Court again in the State of Rajasthan -VS- Jaggu Ram, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 51, held as under : A conjoint reading of Section 304B IPC and Section 113B, Evidence Act, (cid:28)13. shows that in order to prove the charge of dowry death, prosecution has to estab lish that the victim died within 7 years of marriage and she was subjected to c ruelty or harassment soon before her death and as such cruelty or harassment w as for dowry. The expression (cid:28)soon after her death (cid:29) has not been defined in eith er of the statutes. Therefore, in each case, the court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of the victim and decide whether there is any proximate connection between the demand of dowry, the act of cruelty or ha rassment and the death. (cid:29) 16. In view of the above decision, the Court has to consider whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing the existence of the ingredients of S ection 304B IPC. We would now indulge in this exercise. 17. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are not eye witnesses. None of them had witnessed the incident of hanging of the victim by herself or by somebody. The incident took place at about 4 PM (afternoon) of 21.8.2010 insi de the house of the appellant. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that they found the deceased in a hanging state and she was alive at the time when s he was seen by some of the witnesses. Some ladies gathered at the place of occur rence, brought her down and massaged over her body with some oil to restore the blood circulation and to save her life. They also requisitioned an ambulance veh icle and, in fact, shifted the deceased to Morigaon Civil Hospital but she died in the said hospital. 18. The evidence on record is enough to hold that the victim died du e to hanging by her neck by a piece of cloth. The real question, in this case, i s, whether it is a case of homicidal or suicidal hanging. As per evidence of PW- 9, IO, was a party to holding of the inquest over the dead body. He found no inj ury on the body and face of the deceased. However, as per evidence of the medica l officer, PW-4, there was lacerated injury, ligature mark and fracture of the u pper cervical spine which might have been caused in the course of hanging. No cl arification was sought from the medical officer as to why and how the victim sus tained such lacerated injury and ligature mark. His opinion was not sought wheth er such lacerated injury and ligature mark could be sustained in the course of h anging or otherwise. The medical evidence, except the aforesaid lacerated injury and 19. ligature mark, does not disclose that the deceased sustained any injury on the o ther part of her body. Moreover, the medical officer, PW-4, offered no opinion a s to whether the deceased died due to homicidal or suicidal hanging. In fact the defence put no question to the medical officer in this regard. The court of la w, in absence of expert opinion, is not in a position to take a view as to wheth er it was a case of homicidal or suicidal hanging, moreso, when there is no eye witness to the incident. Nobody saw how the hanging took place. The hanging may be by herself or caused by somebody else. The former could be termed as suicidal and the latter as homicidal hanging. 20. Two possibilities have been found in this case. The prosecution side had taken the plea that the victim was hanged by the husband in collusion w ith the other family members (in-laws) as she could not meet their dowry demand. The poor parents of the deceased could not arrange cash amount of Rs.1 lac and a motor cycle for which, out of anger, her husband and the in-laws finished her life by hanging. The IO, while submitting the charge sheet, did not send up the other accused persons (in-laws). The appellant, as the husband of the deceased w as sent up to face the trial inasmuch as there was a strong suspicion against hi m. It was so suspected because the couple lived in the same house without any ot her family member. The accusing finger was pointed at the husband (appellant). T he possibility or probability to commit murder of his wife by way of homicidal h anging can not be ruled out, but there must be some acceptable reason for commit ting such murder of his wife by her husband. Offence under Section 304B IPC is a serious offence and the prosecution must, first of all, prove that there is/was dowry demand(s) and the physical and mental torture or harassment is related to dowry demand. The court has to find out and must be satisfied from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that there was, in fact, dowry demand. In this case evidence has been led to the effect that the dowry demand was made 10 days befo re the death of the victim and her father was informed through his ’nephew’ over mobile phone, whose name has never been disclosed by PW-2 (victim’s father). Th e investigating agency took no pain to get the name of the said ’Nephew’. If the y like, they could collect the said nephew’s name and particulars because it was indicated that his house is only two furlongs away from the house of the appell ant. As the said ’Nephew’ was not produced and examined as a witness, the eviden ce of PW-2, father of the deceased, stands uncorroborated in so far it relates t o allegation of dowry demand of the appellant. In cross-examination, PW-2 also s tated that he came to know about the appellant’s dowry demand from one Rejia. Th e victim first informed about the dowry demand over phone to said Rejia and it w as, in turn, informed to PW-2. The IO, in his evidence, never stated that PW-2 e ver disclosed the said fact before him during investigation. The father of the d eceased (PW-2), for the first time, made statement before the learned trial Cour t to the effect that his daughter informed him about the dowry demand of the a ppellant through his ’Nephew’ and Rejia. There was no previous statement of PW-2 before the IO or the Magistrate in this regard. This may be the reason why the IO did not cite the said Rejia or the ’Nephew’ as witnesses in the charge-sheet. That may also be the reason why the prosecution did not request the Court to su mmon the said Rejia and the ’Nephew’ as witnesses. It is a clear case of improve ment of the case by the informant PW-2 to prove the charge that his daughter was killed by the appellant for not being able to meet the dowry demand. 21. We do not find PW-2 as a reliable and trustworthy witness as his evidence on the charge of dowry demand is as much unbelievable as baseless. Tha t apart, we have found from the evidence of PW 5, 7 and 8 that the appellant and the victim, as a newly married couple, has been maintaining good relationship w ithout any quarrel between them. The said PW 5, 7 and 8 are co-villagers and rel ated witnesses. None of them has stated that the victim was ever subjected to ph ysical and mental torture and harassment by the appellant husband and his other family members on dowry demand. There is not even a whisper in the evidence of t he said witnesses that the appellant and his family members demanded dowry at an y point of time and they subjected the victim to physical and mental torture on demand of dowry. Normally, in the village when there is a dowry demand and tortu re on woman by the husband and in-laws, it hardly remains as secret or undisclos ed to the neighbours. It is because the rustic and unsophisticated simple living villagers do not know how to conceal the family affairs. Had there been a probl em arisen out of dowry demand, it would have been leaked to or made known to co- villagers or at least the neighbours. We have already found that PW 5, 7 and 8 a re all related and neighbours. There is no evidence that the victim ever disclos ed to the said witnesses or any co-villager about the alleged dowry related quar rel, harassment, torture etc. before her death. PW-2, in his evidence stated that the appellant and his family m 22. embers demanded dowry on as many as 10 occasions but there is no substance in it inasmuch as material particulars such as the dates, if not all, even few dates, were not mentioned, on which such dowry demand was made and physical or mental torture was meted on the victim. His evidence in this regard has not been corrob orated by any independent witness or co-villager or neighbour of the deceased. E ven the related witnesses have made no statement supporting the evidence of PW 2 that the appellant made repeated dowry demand on 10 occasions. We have already stated earlier that the ’Nephew’ and Rejia, before whom the deceased divulged th e dowry demand, were not examined by the prosecution and we have disbelieved thi s portion of the evidence of PW-2 and came to a conclusion that it was an improv ement in the prosecution case. The investigating agency, or for that matter the prosecution, as a whole, cannot be blamed for not examining the said ’Nephew’ an d Rejia as witnesses inasmuch as PW-2, as father of the victim, did not disclose this fact before the IO during investigation. There is no lapse on the part of the prosecution in not examining the said persons. Had it been disclosed or foun d reflected in the police report and yet the prosecution failed to examine them, it would have amounted to withholding of important witness attaching serious co nsequence which may be fatal to prosecution. We do not want to attribute any adv erse comments against the IO and the prosecution but we must say that PW-2, as f ather of the victim, took shelter on falsehood by making allegation without any proof or basis. 23. Indisputably, in this case, there is no eye witness or direct ev idence that the deceased was subjected to physical or mental torture due to non fulfillment of dowry demand. So also it is an indisputable position that there i s no evidence, direct or indirect, proving the fact that the appellant and his p arents and other family members demanded dowry as alleged by PW-2 compelling her to take recourse to suicidal hanging to finish her life. 24. In the other way, it is needless to say that the charge of commi ssion of dowry related murder could also be proved by circumstantial evidence bu t we fail to find any such incriminating circumstantial evidence against the app ellant. There is no circumstantial evidence linking the appellant with the death of his wife who was found hanging inside the house/room where they were living. The incident, as disclosed in the police report, took place at about 4 pm in th e afternoon. The prosecution adduced no evidence to the effect that the appellan t was in the house/room at the relevant point of time; say just before or at the time of or immediately after the incident of hanging. No evidence has also been adduced to prove that the appellant was present or last seen with his wife (dec eased), by some body so as to connect or link the appellant with the death of hi s wife or to draw a legal inference that the hanging of the victim could be done by the appellant only and not by any other person. None of the prosecution witn esses has testified that the incident of hanging took place while the appellant was present at home. The little girl, PW-3, who visited her sister’s (deceased’s ) house on the date of occurrence to present ’sweetmeat’, has not stated that she found /met the appellant at his home during her visit. She, of course, depos ed that she met the other family members of the appellant and talked to a lady o f the family. The incident did not take place in the night time and therefore, i t can not be presumed that the couple were present together in the room. As the incident took place at about 4 PM, it can not be taken for granted that the appe llant was present inside the house at the relevant point of time. In the present case, since the presence of the appellant inside the room or in the complex of the house, has not been proved, no presumption or inference could be drawn again st him that he committed the homicidal hanging to kill his wife. 25. As discussed already, the evidence of the prosecution witness is that there was a continued good relationship between the couple and nobody had seen or heard that any quarrel took place between the couple prior to the incide nt. The cogent evidence is that they had love affairs and they got married altho ugh Jafrine had not attained the marriageable age and there was a legal bar and objection to such marriage from their parents, particularly PW 2, father of Jafr ine. We have found in the evidence that some women folk tried to save the life o f the victim by doing massage over her body. She was not found dead at that time and so an ambulance was requisitioned to shift her to hospital. Before her deat h she did not indicate or disclose to persons who were present at the time of ma ssaging her, that she was hanged by her husband or she had been tortured or hara ssed for not being able to meet the dowry demands. 26. In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded to accept the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge of Section 304B and 302 IPC against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and to uphold the conv iction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial court. As the charges have n ot been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial court vide judgment which is under challenge, is lia ble to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside and quashed. The appellant stan ds acquitted on benefit of doubt. He be set at liberty forthwith if his further detention is not required in connection with any other case. 27. Appeal succeeds. The bail bond stands discharged. Return the LCR forthwith.