JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. In the year 1991, Appellant married Pushpa Devi, the deceased. A male child was born to them.

2.At the time of marriage, father of Pushpa, Hazari Ram, allegedly, spent a lot of money. Appellant s family, however, was not happy with the dowry given by the bride side. Pushpa was allegedly tortured and continuously harassed. She had, however, no grievance against her father in law, namely, Ram Swaroop. He had all along been assuring Pushpa and her parents that he would do his best to see that she is not harassed for not bringing enough dowry.

3.After the birth of the child, she came back to her matrimonial home. A few days prior to the incident which took place on 9.5.1994 her uncle Ranveer (PW-2) visited her. She made complaints about the harassments meted out to her. Ranveer conveyed the same to her father. On 9.5.1994, his nephew, Madan Lal (PW-7) was going to some place. Hazari Ram asked him to take him to his daughter s place. On reaching the house of Pushpa, he enquired about her. No response thereto was made but later on he was informed that she had died and the dead body has been cremated. Hazari Ram allegedly came back to his village. He went back to Umawali. A Panchayat was held. Appellant s family accepted the purported mistake that they should have informed Hazari Ram about the death of his daughter. It was agreed that some lands would be settled in the name of the son of Pushpa.

4.On 9.5.1994, a first information report was lodged by Hazari Ram. It appears from the records that investigating agency had been helping the accused. A purported supplementary statement of Hazari Ram was recorded wherein he had allegedly accepted that he was present at the time of funeral. A final form was submitted. However, a protest petition was filed whereupon cognizance of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (Code) was taken. Charges were framed under Section 304B of the Code and in the alternative under Section 306 read with Section 498A thereof. The Trial Court convicted both the accused, namely, Devi Lal and his mother Sukh Devi.

5.An appeal having been preferred by the accused thereagainst before the High Court, the appeal of the appellant was dismissed; but that of Sukh Devi was allowed.

6.Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that no demand of dowry was made in respect of any specific item. It was urged that the prosecution has also not proved as to whether the purported harassment meted out to the deceased was as a result of demand of dowry or not. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, whereupon reliance has been placed by learned Trial Judge as also the High Court, Mr. Parekh would contend, is not attracted to the facts of the present case.

7.Mr. Naveen Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, on the other hand, submitted that from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it would be evident that all the ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code have been proved.

8.Defence of the accused before the learned Trial Judge was that as Pushpa Devi delivered a child, the societal norms by way of custom demanded that the occasion be celebrated by offering gifts and distributing sweets, meal etc. by the maternal grand-father of the child. It was pointed out that almost at the same time, elder brother Banwari Lal s wife also delivered a child and there was a big celebration. Pushpa wanted his father to celebrate the function of her son in a similar manner. But the same was not done. She not only came back from her parents house but after a few days committed suicide. It was furthermore the case of the defence that Hazari Ram was informed about the death of his daughter through one Nand Ram, pursuant whereto, he attended the funeral. Prior thereto, a villa