The prosecution must establish a direct link between dowry-related cruelty and the victim's death for a conviction under Section 304B; mere allegations without substantiation are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.PC.) the sole accused, in Sessions Case No. 88/2011 (New SC No. 551/2016) on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), E-Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi assails the judgment dated 10.02.2016 and order on sentence dated 12.02.2016 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Soma Dutta, the daughter of PW5 and PW6 was married to the accused on 01.05.2006 as per the rites and customs of the community to which they belong. Pursuant to the marriage, Soma Dutta and the accused were residing together in the latter’s house. However, 1½ years after the marriage and till her death on 23.06.2011, the accused subjected his wife to continuous physical and mental harassment by demanding more dowry. Due to the constant mental and physical harassment, Soma Dutta committed suicide by hanging herself to death on 23.06.2011. Hence, as per the final report/charge-sheet, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 304B IPC .

3. On the basis of Ext. PW3/D FIS of PW5, mother of the deceased, given on 24.06.2011, Crime No. 190/2011, New Ashok Nagar Police Station, i.e., Ex. PW1/A, FIR was registered by PW12, SHO. PW12 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report dated 24.06.2011 alleging commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

4. On appearance of the accused before the jurisdictional magistrate pursuant to receipt of summons, copies of all the prosecution reports were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.PC. Thereafter, in compliance of Section 209 Cr.PC, the case was committed to the Court of Session concerned.

5. When the accused appeared before the trial court, as per order dated 20.10.2011, a Charge under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Ext.s PW1/A-B, PW1/D, PW3/A-E, PW4/A, PW5/A1 to A6, PW5/B, PW5/DA-DB, PW5/DY, PW-6/A, PW7/A, PW8/A-C, Mark PW9/DA, PW10/A1 to A7, PW10/A8 to A14, PW12/A to C, PW12/D1 to D5, PW12/X1 too X11, Mark 12/X12, Mark PW18/X18 to X23, Mark PW11/A and Mark PW6/A, Mark PW5/DX were marked in support of the case.

7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.PC with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case and denied demanding dowry.

8. After questioning the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.PC., compliance of Section 232 Cr.PC. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Cr.PC. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (SeeMoidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on hand, the accused has no case that non- compliance of Cr.PC. has caused any prejudice to him.

9. On behalf of the accused, DW1 to DW5 were examined and Exts. DW2/A, DW3/A, DW3/B, DW5/A1 to A