1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal 312 of 2002 is challenging the judgment and order dated 4.6.2002 rendered by 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial 149 of 1998 by and under which, the appellant – accused is convicted for offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC) and under section 304B of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of Rs. 300/-. No separate sentence is imposed for offence punishable under section 498A of IPC. Criminal Appeal 420 of 2002 is preferred by the respondent / State seeking enhancement of the sentence. Both Criminal Appeal 312 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal 420 of 2002 are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. Heard Shri Shashikant Borkar, the learned counsel for the appellant – accused and Smt. Ritu Kalia, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent.

3. PW 3 Dinesh Vishwakarma,who is the father of deceased Sangita lodged oral report dated 27.8.1998 at Police Station, Sakoli (Exh. 32) on the basis of which the police registered offence punishable under section 304B of IPC against the accused. The gist of the oral report is that deceased Sangita, the daughter of the informant, and the accused entered into matrimonial alliance on 5.11.1996. The accused was unemployed at the time of the marriage while Sangita was serving in a school and was a permanent employee. She was posted at Khajri (Dowargaon). Sangita was transferred to Kinhi (Mokhe) in July 1997 where she resided with the accused. In 1997, the accused secured a job as a temporary employee at Jamdi fata. Since the day of the marriage, the accused used to harass Sangita and her family by frequently demanding money. He demanded money from the informant for the B Ed training and the informant obliged. The accused again demanded money for securing employment, which demand was fulfilled by the informant by borrowing money. The accused then pestered Sangita to purchase motorcycle and started ill-treating her. Sangita withdrew money from her bank account and purchased motorcycle 2 to 3 months prior to her death. On the day of Rakhi Pornima, the accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the informant to purchase a plot. Informant did not have the money and told the accused that the demand will be fulfilled soon by arranging another loan. The accused also pressurized Sangita to change the nomination in the life insurance policies taken out before marriage and to substitute his name as nominee. The accused also harassing Sangita since he wanted Sangita to sign consent letter in his name to substitute his name as nominee to Sangita’s provident fund account. The accused accompanied by Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) agent Bhandarkar was consistently pressurizing the informant and Sangita to take out 2 to 3 LIC policies after marriage. The oral report concludes by stating that the informant is of the opinion that Sangita committed suicide since she was fed up with the harassment at the hands of her husband.

4. Investigation ensued and upon completion thereof charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh 11). The accused abjured guilt. The defence is of total denial. The defence disputed that the death is suicidal and suggested that the death is accidental.

5. Section 304B of the IPC was brought on the statute book by the Dowry Prohibition Amendment Act, 1986, with the avowed object of curing and curbing the menace of dowry death. Consequential amendments were effected in the Indian Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. Offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC was made non-bailable and triable by the Sessions Court. Section 113B was introduced in the Indian Evidence Act which reads thus:

“113B. Presumption as to dowry death – When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman