JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant herein calling in question the correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2014 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 108/2012 by which appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and sentence to undergo for imprisonment for life.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.05.2012 at 8:00 pm the appellant and three other co-accused persons (acquitted by order dated 30.09.2021) demanded dowry and harassed deceased Saraswati by which she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her body and set herself ablaze and thereby, appellant committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of deceased Saraswati was solemnized with appellant herein on 07.05.2008 and immediately, after marriage appellant herein and three co-accused persons started demanding dowry and soon before the death of deceased Saraswati, the appellant and other accused persons demanded one lakh rupees for purchasing four wheeler vehicle which was not given by the family member of deceased Saraswati and, therefore, she was ill-treated mentally and physically, pursuant to which, before seven years of marriage deceased Saraswati committed suicide. Appellant admitted deceased Saraswati to the hospital where she died, which was informed by Shiv Lal (PW-2) to Police Station Chirmiri by letter (Ex.P/7 & 8) written by Dr. S.K. Sinha (PW-9). Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/4 and body was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report [Ex.P/9 (A)] conducted by Dr. R.R. Gajbhiya (PW-11) cause of death was due to antemortem burn causing asphyxia.

4. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed the offence.

5. In order to bring home the offence prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents, whereas the appellant in support of his defence has not examined any witness but exhibited four documents i.e. Ex.D/1 to D/4.

6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that as per the evidence of Vijay (PW-4), Hinno (PW-7) and Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha (PW-9), deceased has made dying declaration that she received burn injury at the time of cooking food, and as per Ex.P/7, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha (PW-9) has informed the police in writing that deceased (at that time injured) informed him that she received burn injury at the time of cooking, which shows that appellant has not committed dowry death and, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not well founded. The appellant deserves to be acquitted and the appeal deserves to be allowed as the appellant is in jail since 29.07.2012.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Somya Rai, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that evidence of Meena Bahadur (PW-6), mother of the deceased, is specific and as per Para-3 of her evidence, deceased talked with her over telephone and informed that she was burnt by the appellant and, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection