IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the importance of establishing the specific elements of cruelty and abetment as required by the relevant legal provisions, and the discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act.

ORDER :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/accused under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/07/2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.31/2004, whereby the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund has convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and sentenced them for the rigorous imprisonment for 03 years under Section 498-A IPC, while rigorous imprisonment for 07 years under Section 306 IPC, together with fine amount of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- respectively along with usual default clauses.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the Appellants have been charged with regard to the offences punishable under Sections 304-B IPC on account of death of one Menka, who was the wife of Appellant No.1- Jaswant Jangde and Daughter-in-law of Smt. Bisahin Bai, the Appellant No.2 herein. Her marriage was solemnized in the month of April, 2003 and while living with them at the village Khamharmuda has set her on fire in the night of 29/11/2003, owing to which, she sustained burn injuries and was brought to the Primary Health Center, Jhalap for treatment, but looking to her critical condition, she was referred to the Medical College at Raipur, where she breathed her last on 03/12/2003 at 05:00 PM. A written information about this fact was given by the wardboy of the concerned hospital to the Police Station Moudahapara, Raipur, based upon which, Merg was registered vide Ex.P-1 and inquest of the dead body was made on 04/12/2003 vide Ex.P-2 and thereafter, it was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Ulhas Gonna Dey (PW/9), who opined the cause of death vide report Ex.P-8 to be the failure of Cardio-respiratory owing to burn injuries and its complications. Since the death of the deceased was unnatural, offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC was, therefore, registered vide Ex.P-10 and during the course of investigation, a plastic jerrycan bag poured with half liter of Kerosene oil was seized from the spot vide Ex.P-5 and after recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, the charge sheet was submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund and the matter was, thereafter, committed vide order dated 12/01/2004 to the learned Sessions Judge for its trial, where the charge under Section 304-B IPC has been framed, which has been denied by the Appellants and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the Appellants, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and produced 16 documents, while the Appellant Jaswant Jangde himself, one Phool Singh and Devnarayan were examined in rebuttal.

4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that no evidence is available on record, so as to hold that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death on account of demand of dowry. It held further that since the Appellants were not happy with the deceased as she had not come with sufficient means from her house and because of that, she was harassed and ill-treated by the Appellants which instigated her to commit suicide. In consequence, the Appellants have held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and have been sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.

5. Smt. Meena Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the finding of the Court below holding that the Appellants were not happy with regard to insufficient means brought by the deceased and owing to which, she was harassed and maltreated by them, which compelled and instigated her to take such an extreme step, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record. It is contended further that after evaluating the evidence led by the prosecution, it was observed by the trial Court that no evidence is there on record to hold that the deceased was subjected to cruelty because of