Prosecution must prove essential elements of dowry death under Section 304B, including proximate link between demand and death, beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(ANSHUMAN, J.)

The present appeal has been filed under Section- 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2017 and order of sentence dated 04.08.2017 passed by the court of learned F.T.C.-I, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 459/2006, arising out of Sasaram P.S. Case No. 226/2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 780/2003, whereby the appellant/convict has been convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section-304B of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

2. Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Mrs. Meena Singh, and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State.

Prosecution Case

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

“The informant namely Sultana Begum gave her fardbeyan on 29.4.2003 at 12.15 hours at S.D.P.O. Office Sasaram stating therein that informant had solemnized the marriage of her daughter Roshan @ Ruksana Begum with Mohd. Jamaluddin on 17.12.02 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals and, as per her capacity, she gave Dan Dahej and did Bidai of her daughter. Her daughter went to her sasural (in-laws’ house). After a few days the husband of her daughter Mohd. Jamaluddin, the aunt of Jamaluddin namely Shabba Khatun, sister of the mother of Jamaluddin named Sarfeenna and her husband Mohd. Kalam started demanding a colour T.V., Rs. 50,000/- cash and upon non-fulfilment assaulted and tortured her daughter. Having received this information, the informant went to the house of her daughter on 17.4.2003, where her daughter told her entire story and also told that accused persons were giving threat to kill her. Her son-in-law Jamaluddin was not present at his home on that day and informant returned consoling her daughter that she will talk with him about this matter. It is further alleged that on 28.4.03 at 6:00 a.m., the informant got information on phone that condition of her daughter is serious and to come immediately to see her daughter. Then she along with her husband Mohd. Sadi and son Mohd. Rafiq Ahmad went to Baradih and saw her daughter dead and her dead body was kept for cremation. Her face was blue and dark and abdomen swollen. It is further alleged that informant was coming to the police station, but her son-in-law and his aunt stopped her. Thereafter the dead body of her daughter was cremated and informant, her husband and son returned to her house and on next day morning went to the office of Dy. S.P., Sasaram and narrated about the entire occurrence to him and Dy. S.P. called Darogajee from Agrer P.S. and recorded her fardbeyan. Due to the aforesaid reasons, the informant claims that her daughter has been killed by the accused persons for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.”

4. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused.

5. As the case was exclusively triable by court of sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same under Section 209 of the Code to the concerned sessions court where the same was registered as Sessions Case No.459 of 2006.

6. During course of trial, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses, namely, PW-1, Hasnain Ibrahim, PW-2, Sultana Khatoon, PW-3, Faiz Alam, PW-4, Mohammad Rafi Ahmad, PW-5, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, PW-6, Jahid Khan, P