The judgment establishes the principle that in cases of dowry death, the prosecution must provide specific evidence of dowry demand and harassment, and the presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act applies. The disparity in financial status and lack of specific allegations against the accused are crucial factors in determining the applicability of dowry death provisions.

1. The appellants Mohd.Aslam, Mohd.Arif, Mohd.Ashraf & Smt. Parveen have preferred the instant appeal challenging the judgment dated 13th March, 2002 and order on sentence dated 14th March, 2002 passed in Sessions Case No.246/1996 whereby they have been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 IPC and sentenced as under:

(i) U/S 304-B/34 IPC to undergo RI for seven years.

(ii) U/S 498-A/34 IPC to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for six months.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The appellants before this Court are three brothers-in-law i.e. two jeth and one devar and one sister-in-law i.e. jethani of deceased Shakila. The mother-in-law of the deceased had already expired during trial.

3. All the appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Section 304B/498A/34 IPC on the basis of the statement Ex.PW-2/A made by PW-2 Sh.Saiyed Ahmed, father of the deceased, before the SDM on 5th November, 1995.

4. In the complaint Ex.PW2/A, PW-2 Sh. Saiyed Ahmed stated that his daughter Shakila got married to Anwar on 26th May, 1995 and the venue was in front of A-76, Bada Bagh. Just after four days of the marriage, the mother-in-law, her sons and other family members started demanding dowry and giving beating to his daughter for which a Panchayat was held three-four months prior to her death. The mother-in-law of the deceased used to make her do the entire household work and also to serve her as her jethani had served her for ten years. The mother-in-law used to ask Shakila to bring scooter, fridge and money from her parental home. She was harassed by her jeth-jethani. He suspected the hand of her jeth, jethani, devar and mother-in-law behind her death. The mother, brother and bhabhi of the deceased also made statement before the SDM on the same day. On the basis of interim order Ex.PW-5/A made by the SDM, FIR No.481/1995 Ex.PW5/B was registered under Section 304B/498A/34 IPC at PS Model Town and investigation was handed over to SI Ram Sunder. The body was sent for postmortem and after completion of investigation, all the appellants and the mother-in-law (deceased) were sent to face trial.

5. During trial, since all the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge, prosecution examined nine witnesses to bring home guilt. The appellants were examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against the appellants. In their statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellants have denied the prosecution case and submitted that they were living separately and the deceased along with her husband and mother-in-law was living separately. There was no dowry demand either at the time of marriage or thereafter. The appellants have examined Sh.Anwar–husband of the deceased as DW-1 and Sh.Sabir Ali–resident of the same area as DW-2 in their defence.

6. After trial, the learned Trial Court held all the appellants guilty for the offence for which they had been charged and sentenced in the manner stated above.

7. Mr. S.P. Singh Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellants has submitted that this is a case where all the appellants were living in their separate houses. They had nothing to do with the family affairs of the deceased and her husband. It has been contended that the deceased was leading a happy matrimonial life with her husband which fact has been admitted by PW-1 Smt. Anisa Begum–mother, PW-2 Sh. Saiyed Ahmed–father, PW-3 Smt.Khurshid–bhabhi and PW-4 Sh.Farooq–brother of the deceased. The husband of the deceased Shakila was also so much in love with her that on hearing her death, he attempted to commit suicide and is dead now.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that this is a case where admittedly there was no dowry demand at the time of marriage. Shakila committed suicide within six months of the marriage and during that period of six months no complaint was ever