IMPORTANT POINT
The Court established that dowry death under IPC 304-B requires proof of cruelty related to dowry demands occurring soon before the victim's death.

JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

1. Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. B. Sarma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, in Sessions Case No. 26/2014, convicting the appellants under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, with default stipulation.

3. Dipjyoti Malakar and Labanya Malakar will hereinafter be referred to as the appellants or ‘A-1’ and ‘A-2’, respectively.

4. The FIR was lodged on 01.01.2008, by Smt Mina Das (hereafter also referred to as the informant), contending inter alia, that A-1 married her daughter Rubi Das vide registered marriage dated 04.07.2007 and her daughter started her matrimonial life with the appellant, A-1, in his house. At the behest of A-2, the appellant A-1 used to subject her daughter to cruelty to meet their illegal demand of dowry in the form of cash and furniture etc. Both A-1 and A-2 subjected Ruby Das (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the victim’ or ‘the deceased’) to cruelty as the victim failed to meet their illegal demand of dowry. They also threatened to eliminate her. On 27.07.2012, at about 04:00 pm, the appellants physically assaulted the victim and set her ablaze by dousing her with kerosene. The victim sustained grave burn injuries over her body. During her treatment at the GMCH, the FIR was lodged. As the informant was busy with the treatment of her daughter, there was a delay in lodgement of the FIR.

5. Hajo PS Case No. 1 of 2008, under Section 498(A)/307/34 of IPC was registered and the Investigating Officer (IO, for short) SI M. Rahman was entrusted with the investigation. The IO embarked upon the investigation. Meanwhile, the victim succumbed to her injuries on 08.02.2008 and she passed away and on the prayer of the IO, Section 304-B IPC was added. A-1 was arrested and forwarded to custody. Meanwhile, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellants and A-2 was shown as an absconder in the charge sheet. This case was committed for trial. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 302/304-B/34 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellants, who abjured their guilt and claimed innocence. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 5 (five) witnesses, including the Medical Officer (MO, for short) and the IO. On the incriminating materials, projected through the evidence by the witnesses, several questions were asked to the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short) and the appellants pleaded not guilty to each and every question asked to them in a mechanical and evasive manner. The learned trial Court delineated the following points to decide this case:-

“ POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

(i) Whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have committed murder of the victim Rubi Das by setting her on fire on 27.12.2007 to which she succumbed on 08.02.2008 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC?

(ii) In alternative- Whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention has caused dowry death of victim Rubi Das due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand by setting her on fire by pouring kerosene oil on 27.12.2007 to which she succumbed on 08.02.2008 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 304(B)/34 IPC.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. T. Som laid stress in her argument that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and family members. It is submitted that there is not a single eye-witness in this case. Circumstantial evidence