IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cruelty and dowry death – Once all necessary ingredients of dowry death have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act would not be available to prosecution.
(2) Appreciation of evidence – Distinction must be drawn between admissibility and acceptability/reliability of a piece of evidence – Merely because a piece of evidence is admissible.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. This appeal is against the judgment and order of the High Court¹[The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital] dated 26.04.2012, whereby, while affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 304-B and 498- A IPC²[Indian Penal Code, 1860], the appeal³[Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2010] of the appellants was partly allowed thereby reducing the sentence awarded by the Trial Court⁴[Sessions Judge, Pauri Gharwal] from 10 years to 7 years R.I. under Section 304-B IPC and maintaining the sentence of 1 year R.I. under Section 498-A IPC.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased (Neelam), who was daughter of Shanker Singh (PW-1) and Sarojini Devi (PW-2). The deceased was married to appellants’ son Jitendra Singh (coaccused) on 1.03.2006. On 30.12.2006, deceased gave birth to a male child. Naming ceremony of the child was performed on 11.01.2007. On 17.01.2007, deceased died at her matrimonial home due to extensive burn injuries. Upon being informed of her death, PW-1 lodged a first information report⁵[FIR] (Ex. Ka-1) on the same day, inter alia, alleging that,- when he along with PW-2 had visited deceased’s matrimonial home on 4.1.2007, deceased’s father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (i.e., husband’s elder brother – not tried) and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife – not tried) had told PW-1 and PW-2 that on the day of naming ceremony of the child they would have to give a motor-cycle and cash of Rs.50,000/-. Besides that, it was alleged that when PW-1 and PW-2 visited deceased’s matrimonial home on 11.01.2007, the deceased inquired from PW-1 and PW-2 whether they had brought motorcycle and cash. However, when PW-1 expressed his inability to meet the demand, the deceased told PW-1 that lot of pressure was being put on her and if the demand is not met, she would be killed. With these allegations, and by stating that accused had killed his daughter on account of the demand being not met, PW-1 lodged the FIR, which was registered as case crime No.1 of 2007 at P.S. Langur Walla-2, district Pauri Garhwal, under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against three accused, namely, Jitendra Singh (husband of the deceased) and the appellants, who were all tried together by the Court of Session, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.25 of 2007.

3. During trial, prosecution examined 7 witnesses. PW-1 (the first informant – father of the deceased); PW-2 (mother of the deceased); and PW-3 (uncle of the deceased) were family members of the deceased who proved the date of marriage and alleged that the deceased was depressed on account of the demand. PW-4 was the doctor who conducted autopsy of the cadaver. He proved that the deceased had suffered extensive ante-mortem burn injuries which resulted in her death. PW-5 is cousin of the deceased who had arrived at the spot along with PW-1 on receipt of information regarding her death. He is also the inquest witness. PW-6 is the Patwari who made GD entry of the FIR and took initial steps of investigation such as preparation of inquest report and dispatch of the cadaver for autopsy. PW-7 completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet. PW-7, inter alia, stated that at the time of inquest the body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard.

4. In their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC⁶[Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] the accused admitted:

(a) the factum of marriage;

(b) the date of marriage;

(c) the date of childbirth;

(d) that parents of the deceased visited her matrimonial home on 04.01.2007 to see their daughter and the child; and

(e) that on 11.01.2007 child naming ceremony was done.

The accused, however, denied demand of dowry/ motorcycle/ cash of Rs.50,000/- as well as harassment of the deceased. Jitendra Singh (i.e., husband of the deceased) stated that the deceased committed suicide due to depression on account of staying separate from him as no quarte