The prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry shortly before her death to establish a case under Section 304B IPC.

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in ST No.55/2004 whereby each of the appellants stands convicted under Section 304B/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer additional RI for 03 months.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage of the accused Santosh Kumar was solemnized with Uttara Bai on 20.4.2003 and after marriage, the accused persons started harassing and torturing her in connection with demand of cooler, TV, clock, cow, Luna, press as dowry, to such an extent that she being fed up with this persistent illegal demands poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She was initially taken to Primary Health Center, Dongararh for treatment from where she was referred to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon and then she was referred to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai where on 18.9.2003 she died during treatment. On information being given by the doctor, merg was registered and postmortem of the deceased was conducted.

03. During the course of investigation, letters from the room of the deceased, her necklace, gold locket, broken pieces of bangles, matchbox, plastic can having 200 gm kerosene, burnt pieces of sari and petticoat etc. were seized, spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 304B/34 of IPC , to which the accused/appellants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they did not examine any witness in defence.

05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

06. Learned counsel for the appellants would submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court seriously erred in convicting the appellants relying upon the shaky evidence of the interested witnesses without corroboration from any independent witness and not considered the defence arguments and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He would submit that the accused persons did not make any demand of dowry at the time of marriage which is clear from the evidence of PW-4 Ram Khilawan (brother of the deceased) and PW-6 Ram Kishunu (maternal uncle of the deceased). Learned trial Court also did not consider the material aspect of the case that as per PW-15 Kailash Thakur, the deceased stated that she burnt herself by pouring kerosene as she had unbearable headache. There is nothing on record to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by the appellants and as such, the main ingredients for attracting the offence under Section 304B of IPC are extremely missing in this case. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective and merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises held the appellants guilty under Section 304B/34 of IPC which is not legally sustainable at all. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge.

Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Charan Singh alias Charanjit Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2023 SCC On