The judgment establishes the importance of proving a clear nexus between dowry-related harassment and the death of a woman, as required by Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1. These two appeals have been filed against the common judgment & order dated 20.10.2005 of the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 769 and 974 of 2003.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts of the case are that an FIR being Baghmare P.S. Case No. 229/2000 was registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three aforesaid. appellants on the basis of the information given by Dashrath Singh (PW5), wherein it was alleged that his daughter Gayatri Devi (the deceased) aged about 19 years, was married to the appellant Raja Lal Singh on 24.4.2000 and he had given dowry according to his capacity. His daughter came back after three months of her stay at her in-laws place and told him that her husband Raja Lal Singh, her brotherin-law Pradip Singh and her sister-in-law (Gotni) used to harass her for the demand of a Palang (Bed) and a Godrej Almirah. The informant assured his daughter to fulfill those demands in January, and then his daughter went to her in-laws place. It was further alleged that subsequently when he went to see his daughter at her in-laws place, she again told him about the aforesaid demand of Palang and Godrej Almirah by the appellants and then the informant talked to his son-in-taw, and his brother as well as his wife had promised them to fulfill the demand in January.

4. It is said that on 28.11.2000 one Dunia Lal Singh came to the village of the informant ami informed him that his daughter has died due to hanging. On this information, the informant along with his sons Santosh Singh (PW3), Bhola Singh and Bhagirath Singh went to village Behrakudar, i.e. the village in which his daughter was married, and on reaching there he found that the dead body of his daughter was lying on a Chauki kept in a room at the upper floor of the building of the appellants. On being asked, his son-in-law stated that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself with a ceiling fan by tying a Sari around her neck. His son-in-law also told that since he was sleeping in the room, he could see her hanging only in the early morning when he woke up. On being further questioned by the informant, his son-in-law could not give a satisfactory reply. The informant suspected that his daughter was murdered by her husband, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law, and a colour of suicide was given to the whole occurrence of murder. The police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 304-B/34 IPC. The cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. The defence was of false implication.

6. In order to establish the charges, altogether eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the defence also two witnesses were examined.

7. It appears that PW1 Ramesh Singh, PW2 Sobardhan Singh, PW3 Santosh Singh and PW4 Ashok Singh accompanied the informant PW5 to the in-laws place of the deceased. PW6 is Shiv Pujan Singh, another son of the informant, who is a witness of seizure and he also identified the handwriting of the deceased written on her palm. PW7 is Dr. C.S. Prasad, who held post mortem examination of the deceased and PW 8 Kamta Singh, is the Investigation Officer.

8. As stated earlier, on behalf of the defence also two witnesses were examined. DW1 Bindeshwar Singh, was a co-villager and neighbour of the appellants, who was examined to prove the cordial relationship between the deceased and her husband. DW2 Mantu Singh, another co-villager of the appellant has stated that the appellant Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi were separate in residence and mess with the appellant Raja Lal Singh, husband of the deceased.

9. According to PW7 Dr. C.S. Prasad, who held the post mortem examination of the dead body, the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The post mortem report was proved by him and was marked as Exhibit 2. However, this witness in his cross-examination stated