IMPORTANT POINT
Dowry death – Once prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon after her death, presumption shall be drawn against said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under Section 304B IPC.

JUDGMENT :

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The appellants have assailed the judgment dated 14th September, 2017, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No. 57 of 2010, whereby the judgment dated 17th April, 2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag acquitting them from the charges under Section 498A, 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code¹ [for short “IPC”] has been reversed and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven year with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304B IPC. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 120B IPC and two years under Section 498A IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the appellants are before this Court, in this appeal by way of special leave.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the appellant No. 1, Devender Singh, son of appellant No. 3, Smt. Kunja Devi and Bhawan Singh was married to the deceased, Sushila, the wedding having been solemnized on 20th October, 2007. Sushila is stated to have gone missing from her matrimonial home since 24th April, 2008. This came to the knowledge of the mother of the deceased when the appellant No. 2 herein, Jagdish Singh, brother of the appellant No. 1 called her on 25th April, 2008, at 7.00 p.m. to inform her and enquire as to whether Sushila had gone to the parental home. The mother of the deceased in turn informed her son, the complainant, who resided at Haridwar. On returning to his house, the complainant went to the matrimonial home of the deceased on 28th April, 2008. It has been alleged by the complainant that keeping in view the fact that there were repeated demands for dowry made by the appellants and the manner in which they had behaved with him when he had gone to visit them, made him suspect that his sister had been killed by the appellants but they were feigning ignorance and acting as if his sister had gone missing.

3. Based on the complaint, investigation was carried out by the local police and the body of Sushila was subsequently found in Ganga river. Having regard to the fact that an unnatural death had taken place within about six months of the marriage and since there was an allegation of cruelty relating to demand of dowry, a case was registered against the appellants under Sections 498A, 304B and 120B of IPC. The appellants having denied the allegations levelled against them, trial was conducted in Sessions Trial No. 18/2008 before the District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag. In support of their case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses arrayed as PW-1 to PW-14. Besides denying their role while recording their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants/accused also examined DW-1 to DW-3 as their witnesses. On considering the evidence, the trial Court recorded findings in favour of the appellants and acquitted all of them vide judgment dated 17th April, 2010.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17th April, 2010, State of Uttarakhand preferred an appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital vide Government Appeal No. 57 of 2010. On re-appreciating the entire evidence exhaustively and on applying the legal principles, the High Court has allowed the said appeal. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2018 was set aside. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A, 304B and 120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) and in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment under Section 304B IPC. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 120B IPC and two years under Section 498A IPC. The sentence