The essential ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are that: a) Death of a woman should be caused by burn or bodily injury or otherwise than other normal circumstances. b) The said death took place within seven years of marriage. c) Deceased lady must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative or her husband. d) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry. e) Such cruel treatment or harassment must have been meted out to the deceased lady soon before her death.

JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2015 and the order of sentence dated 30/06/2015 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Uluberia, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 299/2012 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the Appellant No. 1 & 2 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for commission of offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Appellant No. 3 & 4 were sentenced to simple imprisonment for the same term under the same sections. The Appellant No. 1 & 2 were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one month more for commission of offence under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The Appellant No. 3 & 4 were sentenced with simple imprisonment for a term of two years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-each, in default, a further imprisonment of one month. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Genesis of the prosecution is the written complaint dated 10/16/2012 written by one Mirajul Ali Khan which was lodged in Shyampur Police Station. It was alleged in the written complaint that sister of the de-facto complainant Fulsara Begum, the deceased herein, was married to the Appellant No. 1 Sk. Insanuddin on 28/03/2012 according to Muslim customs. On demand of the Appellants, the father of the deceased gave cash amount of Rs. 25,000/-and two bhories gold ornaments in dowry. After marriage the deceased began to live in her matrimonial home with the Appellants. Since after marriage the husband, the parents-in-laws and the brother of the husband being the Appellants used to express their displeasure on quality of the ornaments and used to subject the deceased to torture, both physical and mental. The deceased endured all these tortures with a hope of future happiness. Whenever the deceased visited her parental home she used to complain on the incidents of tortures to the inmates to her parents. It is further alleged in the written complaint that eight days prior to the date of lodging the written complaint, the Appellants assaulted the deceased on demand of more money. The deceased came to her parental home and narrated her plights to the de-facto complainant and the parents of the victim.

3. On the day of lodging the complaint, at 05:00 a.m. the Appellants informed the complainant that the deceased became ill. On getting this information the de-facto complainant, his two brothers and the sister went to the matrimonial home of the deceased, to find that the deceased was lying dead with marks of injury on the face, back and hand. It was assumed by the de-facto complainant that since dowry demands were not fulfilled, the Appellants killed the deceased after assault on her person.

4. The written complaint was duly received by Shyampur Police Station. A case was registered as Shyampur Police Station Case No. 162/2012 dated 10/06/12 under Sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Formal F.I.R. was drawn up and Sub-Inspector Mrinal Kanti Adhikari was entrusted with investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation Charge Sheet was submitted under Section 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5. Since the case is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Howrah. Cognizance was taken by the Learned Sessions Judge and then transferred the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Uluberia for trial.

6. Charges were framed under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code alternatively under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were read over and explained to the Appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and cla