The essential ingredients of section 304-B IPC are: (1) death of a woman caused by burns or bodily injury or occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) such death occurring within seven years of her marriage; (3) before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of the husband; and (4) such cruelty or harassment was caused in connection with demand of dowry. In the absence of evidence to prove these ingredients, a conviction under section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---This appeal is directed on behalf of the original accused Nos. 1 and 3, the son and father respectively, against their conviction and sentence passed on 6-12-1993 by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 75/1988. The appellant No. 1 is the original accused No. 1; whereas the appellant No. 2 is the original accused No. 3. Original accused No. 2 Maruti is the second son of original accused No. 3; whereas the original accused No. 4 is the wife of original accused No. 3. They were all tried on account of death of wife, namely, Usha of original accused No. 1 in suspicious circumstances.

2. In this judgment, we may refer the original accused Nos. 1 and 3 as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The appellant No. 1 married Usha on 12-6-1987. She lived with him in his village Pimparnai till 25-10-1987, except on some occasions when she had been to her parents' place on account of festivals. On 25-10-1987 she was found dead and information about her death was conveyed to her parents immediately. Within couple of hours after seeing the dead body of Usha, her father P.W. 7, Dattatraya lodged his complaint-cum-F.I.R. at Exh. 24 with Neknoor Police Station and a crime being Cr. No. 105/87 came to be registered under sections 302, 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the original accused Nos. 1 to 4.

3. In the F.I.R. (Exh. 24,), P.W. 7 Dattatraya, made a mention that at the time of marriage of Usha with the appellant No. 1, he agreed to pay Rs. 4,000/- as a dowry and he paid Rs. 3,000/- at the time of marriage and it was promised to pay the balance amount after the marriage. After the marriage, Usha used to come to his parents' place and she used to tell to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards the balance dowry amount, to the father-in-law of Usha. She told further that she was subjected to ill-treatment as the balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- was not paid. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that on seeing the dead body of Usha on 25-10-1987 at about 8.30 a.m. he had noticed that his daughter's face was found blackish, her lips reddish black, and he suspected mark of assault on her. Moreover, he also noticed that the mouth and tongue of Usha was crushed, beneath the teeth. On that basis, he alleged that his daughter Usha was beaten on account of her failure to bring the balance amount of dowry and, as such, either she was killed by poisoning or she was murdered by the accused persons.

4. P.S.I. Ramrao (P.W. 13) attached to Neknoor Police Station conducted the investigation on receiving the F.I.R. at about 12.30 noon from P.W. 7 Dattatraya. In course of his investigation, he recorded the statements of six witnesses who happened to be the neighbours of the appellants and also give witnesses. He also conducted the Inquest Report (Exh. 13). There is post-mortem report (Exh. 21). P.W. 6 Dr. Radhkrishna who conducted autopsy on the dead body on 25-10-1987 between 10.30 and 11.30 a.m. could not ascertain the cause of death. He, therefore, reserved his opinion till the CA report. On receipt of CA report, he gave his opinion vide his letter addressed to the P.S.I. on 19-11-1987 (Exh. 20) mentioning that, the cause of death is "shock causing sudden reflex cardiac arrest due to vaso-vagal inhibition due to smothering". The C.A. report (Exh. 22) disclosed no recognisable poison in viscera.

5. The charge was framed against the appellants and others, punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. as well as 498-A read with section 34 I.P.C. However, an additional charge was framed as per Exh. 69 on 14-10-1993, under section 304-B read with section 34 I.P.C. To the charge that was framed, the accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellants specifically denied having committed any of the offences alleged. Not only that but they had denied the circumstances which appeared adverse to them in the evidence of prosecution witne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document