The court ruled that prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment concerning dowry shortly before a woman's death for Section 304B to apply, which was not established in this case.

Judgment :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.2.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker in ST No.128/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 304B/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.10.2006 at 14:00 hours Chandona, wife of the accused/appellant, committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial house. At the time of incident, accused Deepak and his father Dilip had gone to Sambalpur for carpentry work and his mother Manokhushi to the house of her son-in- law (Damad) with her grand-daughter. When Manokhushi returned she found that Chandona had committed suicide by hanging herself. She informed about the incident to the neighbourers, on which at around 17:30 hours on the same day accused Dilip informed Police Station –Bhanupratappur.

During merg enquiry, inquest over the dead body was performed; the dead body was sent for postmortem; sealed vaginal smear slide and the sari used for hanging were seized. It revealed during enquiry that the accused/appellant, his father Dilip and mother Manokhushi used to harass and torture the deceased in connection with demand of dowry which compelled her to commit suicide. Hence offence under Section 304B/34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet under Section 304B/34 of IPC was filed against the accused persons followed by framing of charge accordingly by learned trial Court which was abjured by the accused and they prayed for trial.

03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 07 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. In their defence, they examined one witness.

04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused persons under Section 304B/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. Challenging the said judgment, accused Dilip and Manokhushi filed CRA No.251/2008 and vide order dated 9.7.2025, the said appeal stood abated on account of their death and dismissed as such.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. There is no evidence to prove that the appellant harassed or tortured the deceased for dowry which led her to commit suicide. There are only general and omnibus allegations. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove demand of dowry or cruelty by the appellant. In para 15 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court itself recorded finding that the prosecution could not prove its allegation regarding demand of gold ring, cycle and watch. There are number of omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which makes the whole case doubtful as against the present appellant. The necessary ingredients for attracting the offence u/s 304B of IPC are missing in this case. There is no evidence to show that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 31^st January, 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1076/2014 in the matter of