JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the accused (appellant herein) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Sessions Case No.150 of 2011, vide judgment dated 28-1-2014, convicting the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC.’) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The appellant/accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 302 of the IPC by the respondent – Police while filing the chargesheet before the committal Court. After committal proceedings and after securing the accused, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 302 of the IPC. The trial Court has tried the accused for the above said offences and convicted and sentenced him accordingly, as noted supra.

3. The prosecution in all examined as many as 30 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.30 and got marked 21 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 and material objects i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, but he has not taken any special defence. It is only his defence that, he was not responsible for the death of the deceased and it was an accidental fire death due to stove burst in the house. He has also examined D.W.1, Jubedha, his mother on his side. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, though the witnesses examined before the Court are all kith and kin of the deceased and none of the neighbours have supported the case with regard to demand of dowry, even accepting the evidence of the relatives, there is no material to show that there was any demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment soon before the death of the deceased. The story projected by the prosecution on the date of the incident that, the deceased, being frustrated in life, was proceeding to matrimonial home to catch a bus in the bus stand, at that time, the accused assaulted her and taken her back to his home. He submits that, this particular incident has not been proved before the Court, therefore, there is no satisfactory or adequate evidence before the Court, which is acceptable one to draw an inference that, there was ill-treatment and harassment by the accused to the deceased in demand of money as dowry, therefore, Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. is not attracted.

5. Even if the Court accepts that, some evidence is available on record to prove that, there was demand of money or dowry, but there is no sufficient evidence to hold that, there was any cruelty or harassment soon before the death of the deceased. Therefore, at the most, the alleged offence attracts Section 498A of the I.P.C. He further submitted that, the accused has already undergone more than seven years of imprisonment. Therefore, even if he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A, he may be released forthwith considering his detention in jail as punishment for the said offence. Therefore, he pleaded for allowing the appeal or reducing the sentence passed by the trial Court.

6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has submitted before the Court that, the consistency of the evidence in the prosecution witnesses with regard to demand of dowry right from the date of marriage and thereafter shows that, there was continuous taunting and harassment by the accused in demand of dowry. Though there is some gap in between the demand and death of the deceased, that is not sufficient to draw an inference that, there was no cruelty or harassment in demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. There is no explanation by the accused as to why the deceased has to commit suicide in the house of the accused. The cumu