IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that a conviction under Section 304B for dowry death does not substitute for a murder charge under Section 302, emphasizing the need for distinct evidence for each charge.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The short question involved in this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC at the instance of the appellant herein is, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting him for offences under Sections 304B & 302 of the IPC simultaneously and awarding imprisonment for life in both the above-stated offences separately.

2. The aforesaid question arises in the following factual backdrop: -

Prosecution case in brief: -

3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 5-7-2013 in between 10:00 a.m. and 01:00 p.m., at Village Lagra, Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, the sole appellant herein along with two other accused persons (now acquitted), within seven years of marriage, treated his wife Badan Bai with cruelty demanding dowry by which on the said date, she died unnatural death, as such, she suffered dowry death punishable under Section 304B of the IPC. The appellant herein and other co-accused persons were alternatively charged with the offence of committing murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC alleging that they have strangulated Badan Bai by which she was done to death. Initially, father of the deceased namely, Bhagwat (PW-4) reported the matter naming the appellant herein stating that his daughter has died unnatural death and named the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC pursuant to which morgue Exs.P-16 & P-17 were registered by Mitthu Das (PW-8) – Village Kotwar and thereafter, on the report of the father of the deceased – Bhagwat (PW-4), FIR was registered vide Ex.P-24 and inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.P-14. Dead body of deceased Badan Bai was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Mungeli vide Ex.P-17. Postmortem was conducted by a team of two doctors namely, Dr. Govind Prasad Kaushik (PW-16) and Dr. Ranjana Sahu vide Ex.P-17A and cause of death was opined to be throttling leading to asphyxia, and query report is Ex.P-25. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant herein recorded vide Ex.P-5, iron hook, bloodstained dupatta (scarf) of the deceased and clothes of the appellant were seized from him vide Ex.P-7. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the FSL, Raipur, but no report was brought on record.

4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After due investigation, the accused/appellant herein along with two other co-accused persons (now acquitted) was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 304B and alternatively under Section 302 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Mungeli from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli received the case on transfer for trial.

5. The accused/appellant herein and other acquitted co-accused persons abjured the guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The defence has not examined any witness, however, exhibited one document Ex.D-1 i.e. the statement of Shrawan Sonkar recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, in support of its case. The accused/appellant and two other co-accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question.

Finding of the trial Court: -

6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, firstly held the death of deceased Badan Bai to be homicidal in nature and further held that the deceased died within one year of her marriage with the appellant herein, as the appellant herein has subjected her to cruelty demanding dowry and further relying upon the memorandum statement of the appellant, held in paragraph 44 of the judgment that the appellant herein has admitted the fact of commi