The prosecution must prove demand for dowry and cruelty to establish a dowry death under Section 304B IPC, leading to a presumption of guilt against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.)

The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2018 and order of sentence dated 30.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2017 arising out of Jaynagar P.S. Case No. 186 of 2014, G.R. No. 3018/14, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304B of the I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:-

2.1. The daughter of the informant Ganga Mahto, namely Rani Devi, was married with the accused Anil Kumar Mahto four years prior to the occurrence. After marriage, Rani Devi has begotten a son of three years, namely Shubham Kumar, and a daughter of fifteen months, namely Shristhi, at the time of occurrence. After marriage, the accused Anil Kumar Mahto started demanding a heavy amount as dowry and the informant from time to time provided the amount according to his financial capacity. Earlier before ten or fifteen days of the occurrence, the accused Anil Kumar Mahto and his mother demanded dowry on which the informant told regarding his incapability in doing so. Then, the accused and his mother threatened him to miss his daughter forever. On 27.10.2014, during night hours, the Police of Jaynagar P.S. informed the informant on his mobile that his daughter died and he was called to come to the Police. At about 05:00 am in the morning, when the informant reached the spot, he saw that his daughter was killed by burning and his granddaughter Shrishti Kumari was also burnt and killed. His grandson, Shubham Kumar, has sustained serious burn injuries and was brought to somewhere for his treatment.

2.2. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer started the investigation and, during the course of the investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the appellant/accused before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2017.

3. Heard learned counsel Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur assisted by Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh and Mr. Ritwik Thakur for the appellant and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that though the charge was framed against the appellant and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 304B/34 of the I.P.C., the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304B of I.P.C. and the other co-accused have been acquitted. It is submitted that the present appellant is the husband of the deceased and, therefore, he has been convicted and the other family members have been acquitted by the Trial Court. At this stage, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt despite which, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304B of the I.P.C. Learned counsel would submit that, in the present case, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence in question and the allegation levelled by the prosecution that the appellant and the other family members have killed the deceased is not duly proved. It appears that the Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of the presumption as the death of the deceased took place within seven years of marriage of the appellant and the deceased. Learned counsel would further contend that even the ingredients of Section 304B of I.P.C. are not made out by the prosecution and the same is not duly proved. Learned counsel referred the provisions contained in Section 304B of I.P.C. and thereafter placed