The prosecution must provide legally admissible evidence of dowry demands and cruelty to sustain convictions under IPC Sections 304B and 498A.

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. The appellants/accused have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”). For the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC, the appellants/accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.

2. The first appellant is the father-in-law of the deceased (Kamla Devi) and the second appellant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage between the deceased and the second appellant was solemnized in February 1996. On the night of 13th/14th June 1999, the deceased was found in burnt condition. There are only two material prosecution witnesses. The first witness, Shri Khim Singh Nagarkoti (PW-1), is the father of the deceased, and the second witness, Shri Mohan Singh (PW-2), is the uncle of the deceased.

3. With the assistance of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/accused and the learned counsel representing the respondent/State, we have carefully perused the testimony of both the prosecution witnesses. In the examination-in-chief, PW-1 has stated that:

(a) One year before the incident, the deceased had disclosed to him that the first appellant used to tell her that considering his status as a Captain in the Army, her family members had not given adequate dowry;

(b) Once or twice a year, the second appellant (who was in military service) used to come home on leave. He used to demand money from her;

(c) Pursuant to the said demands, he had paid approximately a total amount of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- to the in-laws of his daughter; and

(d) When he met the deceased last time, she disclosed to him that the appellants used to tell her to bring dowry and used to make a demand for payment of money.

4. PW-1 has not disclosed when he last met the deceased before her death. We have perused the cross-examination of PW-1. The four factual statements which we have set out above are omissions as admitted by PW-1. He also accepted that he was unable to recollect the dates on which the amounts comprising of a sum of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- were paid by him. In the report submitted by him, on the basis of which the First Information Report was registered, he accepted that the fact of sending the amount of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- was not mentioned therein. He also accepted that in the complaint, it is not mentioned that what was demanded was towards dowry. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 regarding the demand for dowry by the appellants and payment of a sum of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- is an omission. These omissions, being significant and relevant, become contradictions by virtue of the explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. Apart from the contradictions, PW-1 was confronted with letters dated 19th December 1997, 18th January 1999 and 17th March 1999. PW-1 accepted that the letters were in his handwriting and bore his signatures. He accepted that in the said letters, he did not mention the demand for dowry.

6. PW-2 is the uncle of the deceased. We may note here that in the cross-examination, PW-1 stated that PW-2 was residing separately. In his examination-in-chief, PW-2 stated that he received a letter from the deceased which was marked as exhibit Ka-2. After receiving the letter, he met the deceased in May 1999, and upon making an enquiry with her, she disclosed that due to insufficient dowry paid by her parents, her in-laws used to taunt her. It is an admitted position that though the Investigating Officer collected the alleged admitted handwriting of the deceased, the said alleged handwriting, along with the letter, were not sent to a handwriting expert to secure his opinion. Therefore, an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution.

7. PW-2 accepted that when his sta