IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand to establish charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment dated 02.07.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.181/2012, whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Sangita was the wife of respondent – Rajendra Kumar Yadav. They were married on 12.05.2011 and the wife died in unnatural circumstances on 04.06.2012 by hanging which led to attraction of ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC and according to the statement of the prosecution which was collected during the investigation, it reveals that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and she died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage. Prosecution case further states that the demand was made of motorcycle and Rs.50,000/-. Consequently, the wife of the respondent eliminated herself in abnormal circumstances and that being unnatural death, the case was registered. The charge-sheet having been filed, the respondent abjured his guilt. The learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the case of the prosecution, acquitted the accused – respondent of the charges levelled against him. Hence, this appeal by the State.

3. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 14 documents connecting the respondent - accused to the crime in question. However, in defence, respondent - accused has examined none, but exhibited three documents i.e. Exs.D-1, D-2 and D-3.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the statement of mother of the deceased, Gayatri Bai Yadav (PW-2), father Rathram Yadav (PW-3) and brother Vijendra Yadav (PW-4), all they have unequivocally supported the fact that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and such evidence remains unrebutted which the trial Court has failed to appreciate. He would further submit that even the uncle of the deceased Manharan Yadav (PW-6) has narrated the similar story and has corroborated the fact, therefore, there was no occasion to draw other inference.

Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge should have drawn the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove the fact that the burden was not discharged by the accused-respondent which the Court has completely failed to appreciate. Therefore, the accused – respondent has wrongly been acquitted by the learned Sessions Court. He went through the statements of witnesses to submit that their evidence remain unrebutted with respect to demand of dowry and consequently, torture led to unnatural death would attract the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the statement of mother Gayatri Bai Yadav (PW-2), father Rathram Yadav (PW-3) and brother Vijendra Yadav (PW-4) would show that the cause of death was otherwise. The deceased was under depression for the reason that the brother of the accused, Deepak, was blessed with a child and it was being celebrated in their house and as against this earlier one male child which was born to the deceased died and because of such bereavement she went in depression. She would further submit that the statement of Manharan Yadav (PW-6) would show that it was all hearsay and the statement of mother, father and brother of the deceased would show that the deceased was hale and hearty in her matrimonial home, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve and even before two days of the incident, they visited their house and no complaint of any cruelty was ever made. The reliance is placed in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 454 to submit that the in