Dowry-death conviction set aside where a separately residing brother-in-law’s complicity was not established.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, who had married co-accused Sanjay Kumar Singh in February 2012, was subjected to dowry-related demands and cruelty, including a demand for ₹5 lakh.

Her body was later found in an orchard near the accused persons’ house.

Bhagwat Mahto, the deceased’s brother-in-law, was convicted with two co-accused under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to ten years’ and five years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively, to run concurrently.

At trial, the prosecution relied principally on witnesses who were relatives or close associates of the deceased; the defence led evidence that Bhagwat Mahto lived separately from the deceased and her husband.

The doctor who conducted the post-mortem could not determine a definite cause of death.

During the appeal, the appeal as to co-appellant Dulari Devi abated following her death; the Court considered Bhagwat Mahto’s appeal on the merits.

1. Whether the evidence justified Bhagwat Mahto’s conviction under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the IPC, despite the absence of a definite medical cause of death and evidence that he lived separately from the deceased and her husband.

2. Whether the trial court could sustain the conviction on the prosecution evidence, which substantially consisted of testimony from the deceased’s family members and close relatives.

The charges were under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the IPC.

The Court stated that a conviction may be based on the testimony of related witnesses where their evidence is reliable and trustworthy; their relationship to the deceased, by itself, is not a basis for discarding their evidence.

The Court considered that the prosecution case substantially rested on testimony from family members and close relatives, but its stated concern was that the doctor had given no definite cause of death and that evidence supported Bhagwat Mahto’s separate residence from the deceased and her husband.

It found that the trial court had convicted him along with the other accused despite the evidence of his separate household, and concluded that the conviction and sentence against him warranted interference.

The judgment does not separately analyse the ingredients of Sections 304(B) and 201/34 or the evidence specific to the charge under Section 201/34.

The appeal as to Dulari Devi had abated.