IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on uncontradicted evidence of witnesses to establish the demand of dowry, cruelty, and the circumstances leading to the victim's suicide, leading to the conviction of the accused under relevant sections of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

BRIEF FACTS:-

1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in connection with Sessions Case No. 256 of 2016 convicting Abdul Haque and Rajema @ Rajia Begum u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) and sentencing them to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years. The other co-accused who were acquitted from charges u/s 304B IPC. Abdul Haque will also be referred to as A1 or accused and Musstt. Rajema @ Rajia Begum will also hereinafter be referred to as A2 or accused.

2. The genesis of the case was that Nilima Begum (hereinafter also referred to as the victim or deceased) was married to Abdul Haque. Abdul Haque and his family members subjected the victim to cruelty and two months prior to the incident, they demanded Rs. 50,000/-as dowry. As the victim failed to fulfill their illegal demand of dowry, she was subjected to immense cruelty and finally she was eliminated. The victim’s sister lodged an FIR with the police which was registered as Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 317 of 2011 and Keshab Ch. Tamuly was entrusted with the investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer (IO in short) embarked upon the investigation. He went to the place of occurrence (PO in short), prepared the sketch-map and recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused, namely, Abdul Haque, Musstt. Rajema @ Rajia Begum, Md. Karim Ali @ Karim Khan and Samir Ali @ Saru Ali.

4. This case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class to the Sessions Judge for trial. At the commencement of trial charge u/s 304B/302 of the IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and the defence cross-examined the witnesses to refute the charges. On the incriminating evidence projected by the prosecution, several questions were asked to the accused-persons u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC for short) and the tenor of their answers reflects a plea of total denial.

5. The trial Court delineated the following points to decide the case.

“The points for determination in this case are:-

I. Whether on 18.08.2011, at about 07:00 pm, at Ragunath Path, Dhirenpara, under Fatasil Ambari P.S, the accused persons committed dowry death by causing death of Nilima Begum and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304(B) IPC?

II. Whether on the same, date, time and place, the accused persons committed murder of Nilima Begum with intent of cause her death and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC?

III. If so, what punishment do they deserve?

DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT

6. It was held by the learned trial Court that the PW-8 is the most vital witness of the prosecution who saw the accused/appellant and the mother-in-law assaulting the deceased on the day of the incident. PW-8 tried to resist the mother-in-law of the victim and tried to snatch away the baby but failed in her attempt, as she was very young at the relevant point of time. It was also held by the learned trial Court that the prosecution could establish from the evidence of PWs-6, 7 and 8 that cruelty and harassment was exerted on the victim “soon before her death” as these witnesses saw the victim sitting outside her house and crying and both the appellants were present at that time. It was also held by the learned trial Court that PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5 could establish the demand of dowry by the appellants. The learned trial Court dismissed the plea of the learned Defence Counsel that the IO did not collect evidence relating to demand of dowry at the time of marriage but the demand of dowry was alleged only after marriage.

SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH SIDES:-

7. Heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

8. The