IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove charges of abetment to suicide and dowry harassment beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 102/2002, convicting the accused/appellants as under :-

Conviction Sentence

Appellant No.1 under Sections 306 IPC. R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months.

Under Section 498

Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498-A IPC R.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 15 days.

(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently)

2. According to the prosecution case, the marriage of accused/appellant No.1 – Avinash Yadu was solemnized with Aplana Yadu (since deceased) in the year 1995 according to the Hindu customs and since then they had been living as husband and wife. In the year 1995 itself, the marriage of Ashok, brother of accused/appellant No.1, was also solemnized. Since the accused/appellant No.1 had received less dowry compared to his brother Ashok, he used to torture the deceased, utter comments and commit maarpeet. The deceased used to complain the act of the accused/appellant No.1 to her brother Ram Gopal (PW/6) and mother Tamin Bai (PW/7) who used to make the deceased understand that the things would get normalize gradually. When the deceased, after one year of marriage carried 08 months pregnancy, the accused/appellant No.1 dropped the deceased to her maternal house, thereafter, the deceased was persuaded by her parents and sent her to in-laws’ house but there were no change in the behavior of the accused/appellants. On the date of incident, the accused/appellant No.1 – Avinash Yadu entered into quarrel with deceased and due to which, she committed suicide in her in-laws’ house by hanging. On the date of incident itself, accused/appellant No.1- Avinash Yadu asked Ram Gopal (PW/6) over phone to take his sister (deceased) to his house and thereafter, after some time, he was informed over phone that his sister has committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of oral information of accused/appellant No.1-Avinash Yadu, merg No.65/2001 was recorded at police Station Durg. On the same day at around 11.15 PM, on the basis of oral report of Ram Gopal (PW/6), offence under Section 304-B of IPC was registered. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Govt. Hospital, Durg vide Ex.P/5, where postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted by Dr. Neeraj Shende (PW/1), who gave his report under Ex.P/1 opining the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging. During the course of investigation, article received as dowry in the marriage of accused/appellant No.1 and his brother Ashok Kumar were seized under Ex.P/8 and P/9. Some letters written by accused/appellant No.1 and deceased & marriage card were seized from the room of deceased under Ex.P/7. During the course of investigation, statements of the members of in-laws’ and maternal side were recorded and on the basis of their statements, it came to fore that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of bringing less dowry, due to which she took such extreme step of suicide to end her life. After completion of usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of IPC before the jurisdictional Court.

3. The trial court framed charges against the accused/appellants under Section 304-B of IPC, alternatively under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC. The accused/appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.

4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering t