IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304-B IPC, establishing that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide, thus satisfying the legal requirements for dowry death.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Balod, District Balod CG in S.T. No.03/2019 convicting the accused/appellants under Section 304-B, 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000 plus default stipulation.

2. As per prosecution case, marriage of the deceased Shail Kumari was solemnized with the appellant No.3 Teeka Ram on 04.02.2018 according to Hindu rites and customs. Appellant No.1 & 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. It is alleged that the accused/appellants subjected her with cruelty for bringing less dowry. On several occasions, assurance was given by the father of the deceased that the accused family would not harass her in future but subsequently, she was subjected to harassment for demand of motorcycle, washing machine, sewing machine and refrigerator. She was also harassed for not cooking food properly and ultimately on 23.06.2018, after pouring kerosene oil, she set herself ablaze and died. Information was sent to police station Gurur vide merg No. 51/2018. Panchnama Ex.P-2 was prepared after giving notice Ex.P-1, dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Government Hospital Gurur where the doctor has prepared postmortem report Ex.P-12 and has opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to 81% burns. FIR Ex.P-24 was registered. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4 of the place of incident Ex. P-14. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and thereafter, the arrest memo Ex.P-5, 6 & 7 was prepared. Based on this, offence was registered against the accused/appellants under Sections 304-B/34. After filing of the charge sheet, trial judge framed charge against the accused/appellants under Sections 304-B/34 and in alternate Section 302/34IPC.

3. The appellants/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried and took the plea of alibi. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, the prosecution has produced 15 witnesses statements of accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court by judgment impugned, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Hence the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is bad in law and contrary to the facts and evidence of the case. The evidence led by the prosecution witnesses suffers from serious infirmity. There is no eye-witness to the incident and the case of prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. It is also submitted that the prosecution has completely failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to harassment for demand of dowry and no such prior report or complaint with regard to demand of dowry and cruelty committed with the deceased, has ever been made by her or by her relatives. It is submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B of IPC are missing. He submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was demand of dowry as statement of important witnesses including family members of deceased suffers from material contradictions and omissions. He submits that the witnesses being family members, their statement is not reliable. That, the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. Lastly, the conviction of appellants are based only upon presumption and evidence available on record is not sufficient to convict the accused/appellants. He has placed his reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, (2008) 1 SCC 202; Durga Prasad and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 9 SCC 73 and Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, 2023 SCC Online 454 and submits that the conviction is not sustainable in absence of evidence in connec