Continuous demand for dowry and cruelty can sustain a conviction for dowry death, even if demands do not occur immediately before death.

JUDGMENT :

M G Uma, J.

The appellants being accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.105 of 2006 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, are impugning the judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2011 and order of sentence dated 24.11.2011, convicting accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A and 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act; convicting accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 98-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act and sentencing accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 04-B of IPC; to undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of DP Act; accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of DP Act and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 98-A of IPC, with default sentences, while acquitting them for the offences punishable under Sections 3 02 and 306 read with Section 3 4 of IPC and under Section 6 of DP Act and accused No.2 is also acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 3 04-B of IPC and under Section 3 of DP Act.

2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution is that, accused No.1 married the deceased Lakshmishree on 30.04.2004. At the time of marriage talks, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded dowry of Rs.4,00,000/-, 250 grams of gold and a Hero Honda motorcycle. Accused No.1 had received Rs.7,000/- for the purpose of purchasing clothes. He also received 40 grams of gold ornaments. After marriage, the deceased started residing with accused Nos.1 and 2 at Udboor village. After sometime, accused No.1 shifted his residence to Mahadevapura at Mysuru along with deceased Lakshmishree and started residing in a rented house. It is also stated that still accused Nos.1 and 2 were demanding additional dowry and used to ill-treat the deceased.

3. It is the contention of the prosecution that on 24.11.2005 at 7.00 p.m., the deceased unable to tolerate the ill-treatment meted to her, poured kerosene on herself and set fire. After the incident, she was shifted to JSS hospital by accused No.1 where she succumbed to the injuries on 26.11.2005. Therefore, it is stated that accused No.1 being the husband, accused No.2 being the mother-in-law demanded dowry, treated the deceased with cruelty and caused dowry death punishable under Sections 4 98-A, 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of DP Act.

4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 25, got marked Exs.P1 to P42 and identified MOs.1 to 4. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 3 13 of Cr.P.C., but not led any evidence in support of their defence, but, however, got marked Exs.D1 to D12 during cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 4 98-A and 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. It also formed an opinion that accused No.2 has committed the offe