IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

RAJANI DUBEY, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2003 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 371/2002 whereby, the trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:-

2. Vide order dated 22.08.2023 passed by this Court, the instant appeal stands abated in respect of Appellant No.3- Sadhaeemati as she died on 26.07.2009. Hence, the instant appeal is being prosecuted on behalf of appellant No. 1- Lakeshwar Sahu, appellant No.2- Jagjivan Sahu & appellant No.4- Khikh Bai.

3. Case of the prosecution is that on 02.08.2002, merg intimation with regard to death of his daughter-in-law was lodged by the accused/appellant No.1- Lakeshwar sahu to the police station-Sarsinwa. The Merg No. 20/2002 (Ex.P/10) was registered wherein the complainant stated that on the date of incident, appellants went to work on field. Deceased- Rameshwari was alone in the house. At about 10:00 A.M., they came to house after seeing the smoke coming out of their house and saw that the house caught fire and thereafter, they extinguished the fire and entered the house and saw that the deceased -Rameshwari suffered burn injuries and due to which she died.

4. On the basis of merg, an offence under Section 304B/34 of IPC was registered against the appellants. Investigation was carried out and statements of the witnesses were taken. Inquest memo was prepared and thereafter the body was sent for postmortem. Seizure was made. Thereafter, the spot-map was prepared. Charge-sheet for the offence under Section 304B/34 of IPC was filed before the trial Court. During the course of the trial, appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

5. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no evidence was adduced by them in their defence.

6. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 10.03.2003, finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned trial Court failed to see that the parents of the deceased are poor persons and their financial position is not well therefore the question does not arise that the alleged dowry articles have been given or provided. Learned trial Court failed to see that the appellants are also villagers and they have small mud made house and there is no electricity facility in their house, therefore, the allegation of demand of electric fan, television and other electrical articles is unbelievable and unnatural. The learned trial Court also failed to see that the deceased and accused are relatives to each other and the marriage of deceased was fixed due to their relation. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence of the parties properly, wrongly convicted the appellants. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to law applicable in this case, therefore, the impugned judgment may be set aside.

8. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s order dated 13.1