The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide clear and consistent evidence to establish guilt in cases of dowry harassment and unnatural death, emphasizing the importance of material particulars and credibility of testimonies.

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (Open Court)

1. By this Leave Petition the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Ld.Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.04.2011 in SC No.71/2010 by which the Respondent was acquitted for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC.

2. The deceased Kiran had married the Respondent/accused Vikas Sharma on 10.11.2008. The prosecution had alleged that the couple’s engagement had taken 9 months prior to the incident. After solemnizing the marriage, the couple went to Vaishno Devi for 6 days. Later Kiran went to her parental house for 3 days. Thereafter, she joined her husband. It was alleged that the body of Kiran was found at around 4-5 P.M. On 25.11.2008; she was found to be hanging in the matrimonial home, which is situated on the 2nd floor of the premises owned by PW-12. It was alleged that the accused was responsible for this on account of constant cruelty meted out by him, in connection with dowry harassment which ultimately led to the unnatural death.

3. After conclusion of investigation – during the course of which the accused was arrested, the police filed a charge-sheet. The trial Court framed the charges; the accused denied his guilt and claimed trial. During the course of the trial, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of fifteen witnesses besides other materials as such as post-mortem report, forensic laboratory report etc. On an overall consideration of this Trial Court found that the prosecution was unable to establish the accused’s guilt and accordingly acquitted him.

4. It is urged by the APP that the Trial Court overlooked the singular feature that the death occurred within 15 days of the marriage itself and there was no apparent cause. If this was to be connected with the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1 and PW-2 about the demands for car made by the accused, there could be no room for doubt that constant demands for dowry had led Kiran to end her life. In overlooking these aspects, the Trial Court fell into error.

5. The Trial Court records were considered by this Court for the purpose of examining whether the State ought to be granted leave. The substratum of its reasoning in the impugned judgment is reproduced below :

“27. The relatives of the deceased particularly her mother and brother are the crucial witnesses to give the details of the circumstances leading to the incident. They have been examined as PW5 and PW4 respectively and also the maternal aunt and uncle of the deceased have been examined as PW1and PW2. All these witnesses have different versions to put forth on the aspect of alleged dowry demands. According to PW1 (Meena)accused demanded car from Manish ( PW4) when he went to take the deceased on 20.11.08. Again on 23.11.08, when accused came to the parental home to take her wife back, he repeated his demand of car but the mother of deceased expressed her inability and convinced the accused not to harass the deceased. However, Manish(PW4) and Smt Maya Devi (PW5) mother of the deceased have not stated that any demand of car was raised on 20.11.08 or 23.11.08 by the accused or his family members in their presence. Admittedly PW1 was not present on both these occasions. PW2 Rajesh, maternal uncle of the deceased stated that on 23.11.08 he went to the house of his sister and found the deceased Kiran in sad mood and she told that accused and his family members were demanding car in dowry. On 24.11.08, PW2 again visited the house of his sister and was informed that accused and his family members have been harassing Kiran for car. During cross-examination, it is admitted by PW2 that engagement ceremony took place nine months prior to the marriage and first time the demand of car was disclosed to him on 23.11.08. Now considering the testimony of mother and brother of the deceased, it is not mentioned by them that PW2 Rajesh was present on 23.11.08 when the accused came to parental home of the