The prosecution must establish cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry to apply Section 498A IPC, and a thorough investigation is essential to uncover the circumstances leading to the victim's death.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. The appellants Ramesh (A-1), Krishna (A-2) and Sonia (A-3) impugn judgment in Sessions Case No.69/1998 arising out of FIR No.5/1998, PS Shahdara by which A-1 was convicted under Sections 498A/304B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine. A-2 and A-3 were convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine Rs. 1,000/-each.

2. Sheetal (since deceased) was married to Ramesh on 03.03.1995. She resided at her matrimonial home No.1/5102, Gali No.3, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara after her marriage. On 01.01.1998, she expired after sustaining cent-percent burn injuries. Daily Diary (DD) No.82B (Ex.PW-7/A) was recorded at PS Shahdara at 07.15 P.M. The investigation was assigned to SI Grudev Singh. He informed SDM (Sh.Vinay Bhushan), who recorded statement of the deceased’s father and lodged First Information Report. Case under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was registered. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses conversant with facts. Post-mortem on the body of the deceased was conducted. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to substantiate the charges. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellants as mentioned previously. It is relevant to note that the State did not prefer appeal against acquittal of A-2 and A-3 under Section 304B IPC.

3. Learned Senior Counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 who were interested witnesses. No independent public witness from the locality was associated. There was no demand of dowry. A-1 and Sheetal had gone to her parents’ house and stayed there for 3 -4 days. A-1himself sustained injuries in an attempt to save Sheetal. There was no evidence to prove that ‘soon before her death’ any dowry demand was made by the appellants. Learned APP urged that A-1 had demanded Rs. 30,000/-but deceased’s parents were able to give him Rs. 10,000/-. Soon after return from the parents’ house, Sheetal died an unnatural death in the matrimonial home. PW-2 and PW-3 have no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellants and their relationship with the deceased is not a factor to discard their truthful version.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the record. It is not disputed that Sheetal was married to A-1 on 03.03.1995 and she expired by sustaining burn injuries on her body on 01.01.1998 at her matrimonial home. A conjoint reading of Section 113 B of the Evidence Act and Section 304 B shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injuries or danger to life, limb or health of the woman are required to be established to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC. It is a matter of record that at no stage prior to death, Sheetal or her parents ever lodged any complaint whatsoever against any of the appellants for harassment/ torture, physical or mental on account of dowry demands. No ‘Panchayat’ was ever organised in this regard. Admittedly, there was no demand of dowry by the accused prior to the marriage. PW-2 (Harvinder Singh), Sheetal’s father admitted that there was no talk of dowry when marriage was negotiated. PW-3 (Madhu Bala), Sheetal’s mother also admitted that there was no dispute over dowry articles either at the time of engagement or marriage. The accused persons were old relatives of deceased’s parents. The mediator in the marriage was Harvinder’s mother-in-law (deceased’s grand-mother). PW-2 & PW-3 never lodged