1. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 31-7-2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Session Trial 97/2002, by and under which the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to payment of fine of Rs.500/- and is further convicted for offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-. The father and mother of the accused Natthuji Parashram Bhandare and Sau. Shantabai Natthuji Bhandare who were arrayed as accused 2 and 3 in the trial are acquitted.

2. Concededly, Babita whose marriage with the accused was solemnized in 1997 expired on 17-5-2002 due to consumption of poison. The mother of the deceased Smt. Shakuntalabai (P.W.1) lodged oral report on 24-5-2002 (Exhibit 25) at Police Station Manora alleging that Babita was subjected to mental and physical harassment in order to coerce her to satisfy dowry demand of Rs.20,000/-. P.W.1 states in the report that Rs.5,000/- was given to Babita on two separate occasions to ensure that she did not suffer harassment at the hands of her in-laws. Babita had visited the parental home eight days prior to the birth anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Babita narrated that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by her husband and in-laws who had asked her to bring Rs.10,000/- from the parental home. P.W.1 states that since the amount was not available, Babita was persuaded to go back to her matrimonial house. P.W.1 Shakuntalabai states in the report that two daughters are born from the wedlock. The elder daughter Neha is physically challenged and is deaf and dumb. The younger daughter is hardly seven months old.

3. The Manora police registered offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the said report, investigation ensued and upon completion thereof charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangrulpir, who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exhibit 20) under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. The defence of the accused is of total denial. The trend and tenor of the cross-examination would suggest that while denying that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, the suggestion is that the family of the deceased nurtured a grievance that the accused did not do enough to provide medical aid to the deceased and the physically challenged daughter Neha. The unfortunate death of Babita was traumatic and due to a perceived grievance that the accused is somehow or the other responsible for the death, he is falsely implicated.

4. Heard Shri Ashish Girdekar, learned Advocate for the accused and Shri N.R. Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

5. Record reveals, that since the sentence of five years imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for offence under Section 304B of the IPC is less than the minimum mandated, this Court by order dated 27-8-2004 was pleased to issue notice for enhancement of sentence.

6. 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 and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to