The prosecution must establish a proximate link between dowry demand and the victim's death under Section 304B IPC; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Atal Tiwari, learned amicus curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and Addl. PP for the State.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.09.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Sessions Case No. 133/2011, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-convict from District Jail, Nalbari. By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted (i) for committing offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- with default stipulation and (ii) also convicted for committing offence under section 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years. It was ordered that both the sentence would run concurrently. Prosecution case, in brief:

3. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 07.01.2008, one Himani Baishya had lodged an ejahar that her daughter had eloped with the appellant about 3 (three) years ago and thereafter, their social marriage was performed. It was alleged that since marriage, the appellant and his mother Jalo Baishya @ Bania had started physical torture on Tulika demanding dowry and on 28.12.2007, the accused persons set Tulika ablaze after pouring kerosene on her body. When she raised hue and cry, the appellant had brought her to Tihu Govt. Hospital and the doctors had referred her to GMCH, where she had succumbed to her injuries on 05.01.2008. On receipt of the ejahar, Tihu P.S. Case No. 1/2008 was registered, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 50/2008.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tihu, having found the case exclusively triable for the Court of Sessions, had committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Nalbari for trial. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302/304B/34 IPC. In support of the charges, the prosecution had examined 11 (eleven) witnesses, viz. Himani Baishya (PW-1), Manika Talukdar (PW-2), Nayan Sarma (PW-3), Usha Swargiary (PW-4), Sadhu Das (PW-5), Banikanta (PW-6), Dr. Richa Pandey (PW-7), Angad Rajbonghsi (PW-8), Rohini Talukdar (I/O) (PW-9), S. Haque (I/O) (PW-10), and Tapan Kalita (I/O) PW-11. The following documents were exhibited, viz. Ejahar (Ext.1), 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant (Ext.2), Postmortem Report (Ext.3), Inquest Report (Ext.4), Dead Body Challan (Ext.5), Final Report (Ext.6), and Sketch Map of PO (Ext.7). On closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant had taken the plea of denial and the appellant had declined to examine any defence witnesses. Decision of the Sessions Court:

5. The complainant, namely, Smt. Himani Baishya was examined as PW-1. In her examination-in-chief, she had stated that the incident took place in the year 2007. Her daughter (i.e. victim) was married to the appellant about 6 years ago and out of their wedlock, the victim had given birth to a male child. She had stated that after their marriage, they demanded furniture, etc. as dowry and she had partly fulfilled their demand and that she had visiting terms to their residence for three years after marriage but as she failed to fulfill their demand they did not allow her to visit their residence. She had stated that on the day of incident at about 4.00 AM, appellant had poured kerosene on the victim and his mother had put fire on the victim and then they sent the brother of the appellant to bring her to their residence. She came and heard that the victim was taken to Nalbari for treatment and she came to Nalbari Civil Hospital and came to know that she was already taken to GMCH and then she came to GMCH and saw that except for the face, her entire body was covered by bandage. She was unable to talk for 3 (three) days and after three days the victim told her to look after her son. The victim had told her that as they could not fulfill the demand for dowry, the appellant and his mother had burnt her. She had stated that she was with her dau