The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of direct proximity between the dowry demand and the incident for conviction under Section 304B IPC, and the significance of specific allegations of dowry demand and harassment in upholding the conviction under Section 498A IPC.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed under Sections 374 and 382 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 05th July, 2008 and order on sentence dated 08th July, 2008 whereby the appellant-husband has been convicted under Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and ten years respectively. A fine was also imposed in respect of both the convictions.

2. The prosecution’s case in nutshell is that Ms. Sangeeta (hereinafter referred to as‘ the deceased’) married the appellant Deepak on 09th February, 2000. The appellant and his father had demanded dowry at the time of fixation of marriage. Even after solemnization of the marriage, the appellant and his son had continued to harass the deceased for dowry. The appellant and his father used to demand money from the father of the deceased on one pretext or another. As per the prosecution’s case on 28th March, 2004, appellant’s father demanded One lac from Mr. Hari Kishan, the father of the deceased which was refused. On this, the appellant’s father threatened the father of the deceased that he would not see his daughter alive. On 04th April, 2004, Police received information that appellant’s wife had committed suicide.

3. Mr. Mittal submits that even if the statements of PW4 and PW5 are taken in their entirety, no case under Sections 304B and 498A IPC is made out against the appellant-husband. He further submits that allegations against the appellant are similar to those made against the brothers of the appellant, who have been acquitted.

4. Mr. Manoj Ohri, learned APP for State, on the other hand, supports the judgment of the trial court. He refers to the statement of PW5 brother of the deceased, wherein specific allegations have been made against the appellant-husband.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the file. Sections 498A and 304B IPC are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section," cruelty" means-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.’

“304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] ”

6. Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 which is also relevant for the present case is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, t