JUDGMENT

B.L.HANSARIA, J.

(1) DOWRY, dowry and dowry. This is the painful repetition which confronts, and at times haunts, many parents of a girl child in this holy land of ours where, in good old days the belief was : ["Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra dewatah] (where woman is worshipped, there is abode of God). We have mentioned about dowry thrice, because this demand is made on three occasions: (i) before marriage; (ii) at the time of marriage; and (iii) after the marriage. Greed being limitless, the demands become insatiable in many cases, followed by torture on the girl, leading to either suicide in some cases or murder in some.

(2) THE highly injurious and deleterious effect on the girl, her parents and the society at large required legislative interference. It started with enactment of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, containing some penal provisions also. But as the evil could not be taken care of by this soft statute, the Penal Code was amended first by inserting Ch. XX-A (containing the only Section 498-A) in it by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (46 of 1983; and then, by insertion of Section 304-B by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 (43 of 1986. Section 498-A seeks to protect a married woman from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relative. Section 304-B is aimed at those who indulge in "dowry deaths". To give teeth to these provisions. Act 46 of 1983 inserted Section 113-A in the Evidence Act, permitting a court to presume, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that suicide by the woman was abetted by her husband or his relative. Similarly, Act 43 of 1986 inserted Section 113-B in the Evidence Act requiring some presumption to be drawn in case of dowry death. Amendment was also made in the Code of Criminal Procedure making the offence of dowry death cognizable, non-bailable and triable by a court of Session.

(3) IN the appeal at hand we are required to decide whether the respondents had committed offences under S. 304-B and 306 which punishes abetment of suicide. The trial court (Sessions Judge, Harnirpur) having acquitted all the accused of the aforesaid offences, the State approached the Himachal Pradesh High court seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal. The High court refused leave by a short order observing "all the essential features of the prosecution case have remained unsubstantiated" and the accused "could not have been convicted on the vague and unsubstantiated allegations". Hence this appeal by special leave.

(4) THE couple was married on 6/2/1985. 5-6 months thereafter, it is alleged, that the husband of deceased Roshani, named Nikku Ram, her mother-in-law Batholi Devi, and sister-in-law Kamla Devi started taunting Roshani for bringing less dowry. Demands for television, electric fan and buffalo etc. were made through Roshani, which not having been fulfilled, the prosecution case is, that the aforesaid named persons started treating Roshani with cruelty. The harassment gradually increased so much so that on 20/6/1988 Batholi is alleged to have given a blow with drati (a sickle-like instrument) causing an incised wound on the forehead of Roshani. She being unable to bear the torture etc., it is said, consumed naphthalene balls which proved fatal and she died on 20th June itself due to cardio-respiratory arrest. On police being informed, investigation was made, during the course of which a sickle was recovered on the disclosure made by Batholi. Some letters written by Roshani to her father also came into light. After completion of investigation the aforesaid persons were challaned for offences under S. 304-B, 306 and 498-A Indian Penal Code, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. The first two offences being exclusively triable by court of Session, the accused persons were committed to stand their trial before that court.

(5) DURING the course of the trial the prosecutio