The prosecution must prove dowry death beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of supporting evidence necessitated acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE vide judgment dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 471 of 2011 (G.R. No. 62 of 2011), arising out of Katihar Nagar (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 11 of 2011. By order dated 26.07.2018, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- without any default clause.

3. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that without there being any evidence of any demand of dowry and cruelty or the appellant having killed the deceased, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. and sentenced so severely.

4. The police had submitted charge-sheet only against the appellant, whereupon the case was sent for Trial.

5. The Trial Court, after having examined fifteen witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and three on behalf of the defence, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

6. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the father of the deceased, namely, Purushottam Sah (P.W. 12) on 07.01.2011, alleging that the deceased was married to the appellant in the year 2007. Out of the wedlock, one girl child was born. At the time of the death, the deceased was pregnant. Initially, the relationship between the couple was very cordial. However, later, the appellant, as alleged, started demanding money as part of dowry; the non-fulfillment of which demand led to mental and physical torture of the deceased. On one occasion, the deceased had informed P.W. 12 on telephone that she was being subjected to cruel treatment. P.W. 12 wanted to know from his daughter (deceased) as to the course of action to be taken against the appellant. She had but left the decision on her father (P.W. 12). P.W. 12 had contacted the family members of the appellant, who had assured him that they will ensure that the appellant mends his ways. His daughter (deceased) had also called P.W. 12 on one occasion, asking him to let go of the matter as the appellant had reformed himself. However, in practicality, there was no change of heart and the cruelty continued. Again, on many occasions, the deceased informed P.W. 12 that the relationship has not yet improved. On one occasion, the date of which has not been provided in the F.I.R., the deceased expressed before him that she would not be allowed to remain alive by the appellant and his family members. P.W. 12 was also informed by his daughter that after assaulting the deceased, she was thrown out of the house and was not even allowed to enter the house of her sister-in-law. Because of such cruel treatment, the deceased set herself on fire and while being treated for burn injuries, she died in hospital on 06.01.2011 at about 04:00 P.M.

7. P.W. 12 has further disclosed in the F.I.R. that he could learn about this after a day when she was put on fire. The deceased was first taken to Sadar Hospital, Katihar. On P.W. 12 knowing about it, he visited Sadar Hospital along with his cousin/Sunil Kumar Sah (P.W. 13) and, thereafter, brought the deceased in an injured condition to Katihar Medical College and Hospital, Katihar (K.M.C.H), where during the course of treatment, the deceased died.

8. On the basis of the afore-noted statement of P.W. 12, a case vide Katihar Nagar (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 11 of 2011, dated 10.01.2011, was registered for investigation for t