The court ruled that to establish dowry death under Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must show cruelty for dowry was inflicted soon before the victim's death, with a clear link between the two.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant against a judgment and order dated 16th June, 2000 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. XL/November 1997, convicting the appellants under Section 4 98A/34, 304B/34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, in default, whereof further rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 4 98A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each under Section 3 04B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof, a further rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all the three sentences of substantive imprisonment will run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case originated on the basis of a complaint filed by the brother of the victim precisely stating that the victim was married to Nur Salim Mallick, son of Siddique Mallick. A sum of Rs.7,000/-, and 3 bhories of gold, Titan wrist watch was provided to the bride groom as dowry with a promise to provide 1 bhori of gold later on. The victim was tortured time and again on demand of such remaining portion of dowry. The complainant had given 8 annas of gold later on when the victim visited their house to attend a marriage. On 28/39-07-1997 at about 2 hrs. at night the elder brother of the victim’s husband namely Nur Islam Mallick and brother of the husband of his sister Nur Alam Mallick visited their house and informed that his sister was ill with vomiting and loose motion. The complainant accompanied his brother and mother reached the matrimonial home of his sister and found her lying on the bedsted, the body being covered by a cloth. The complainant opined that the present appellants had killed his sister in collusion.

3. Based on the aforesaid complaint Kolaghat P.S. Case No. 97/97 dated 29.07.1997 was registered under Sections 498A/304B/302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

4. Investigation pursued and on completion of the same charge-sheet was framed. Charges were framed against the appellants to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The appellants were placed on trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. XL/Nov/1997, facing the charge under Sections 4 98A/34, 304B/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE alternatively under Sections 3 02/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

6. By judgment and order dated 16th June, 2000, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellants under Sections 4 98A/34 and 304B/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-each, in default whereof, a further rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 4 98A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and rigorous imprisonment for seven years each under Section 3 04B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs.2,000/-each, in default whereof, a further rigoro