The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to establish sustained demand of dowry and its link to the deceased's death for conviction under Section 304B, IPC, as well as the elements of cruelty and harassment under Section 498A, IPC, and the provisions of abetment of suicide under Section 306, IPC.

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. The Appellant herein, has been convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 (seven) years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of 3 (three) months RI vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4 (FTC) Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case 317 (K) of 2006. However, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted father and mother-in-law of the deceased due to insufficiency of evidence of abetment or instigation for demand of dowry or regarding cruelty or harassment to the deceased. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence the husband has preferred this appeal.

2. I have heard Shri K. Agarwal learned Counsel for the accused Appellant. Also heard Shri B.S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence proffered by the prosecution and the record.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the deceased had married the Appellant about 6 (six) years prior to her unnatural death. The deceased went missing in between the night of 2nd and 3rd July, 2006. Her dead body was found floating in a nearby pond in the early morning of 14th July. On the same day the father-in-law of the deceased informed about the missing of the deceased Makani Das to her elder brother (PW 1). Simultaneously, Police was also informed about the missing of Makani and noticing her dead body in pond. This oral information was reduced into writing vide GDE No. dated 4.7.2006 (Ext. 8) at Hajo Police Station. When the preliminary investigation was on PW 1 also lodged a normal written FIR alleging that his sister met with an unnatural death due to physical and mental torture for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. This FIR was registered as Hajo PS Case No. 27 of 2000 under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (Briefly 'IPC hereinafter). After investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 27.9.2006.

4. In order to establish the offence of dowry death the prosecution examined altogether 10 (ten) witnesses. PW's 1, 2 and 4 are related to the deceased; PWs 3, 6 and 7 are independent witnesses; PW 5 is the autopsy doctor, PW 8 is the Judicial Magistrate who had recorded 164 statement of PW 6, PW 9 is the Circle Officer being a witness to the inquest upon the dead body and PW 10 is the Investigating Officer.

5. The defence case of total denial and no evidence in defence was also tendered. Having found sufficient evidence of inflicting mental torture for demand of dowry by the husband he has been convicted accordingly.

6. Shri Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in order to convict a person under Section 304B the prosecution is duly bound to prove that the demand of dowry was proximate to the incident and it was the immediate cause for committing suicide. In support of this submission the learned Counsel has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Akula Ravinder and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 99, Hira Lal and Ors. v. State reported in (2003) 8 SCC 80; Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2006) 1 SCC 463, Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2008 (16) SCALE 168, Prem Kan-war v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 1123. The learned Counsel further submitted that since prosecution evidence are not strong enough to take a view that the deceased was subject to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry the Appellant also cannot be convicted under Section 498A in lieu of dowry death offence. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the evidences are lacking to hold that the Appellant had abated the offence of suicide. The learned Counsel' submitted that to convert the offence from Section 304B to Section 306, IPC with the aid of Sections 215 and 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also the prosecution has to establis