IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction under Section 304-B IPC requires clear evidence of cruelty related to dowry demands shortly before the victim's death, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 11.09.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Bongaigaon, in connection with Sessions Case No. 87 (J) of 2009, convicting Sri Raben Kalita under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short), and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years.

2. Sri Raben Kalita will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant. Sri Bhubaneswar Mazumdar (hereinafter referred to as the informant), lodged the FIR on 16.12.2003, that the victim’s (also referred to as Jonali or deceased) marriage was solemnized with the appellant in the Assamese month of Ahar. From the threshold of her marriage, the victim was subjected to cruelty as she failed to meet the illegal demand of dowry of the appellant and his family members, including the appellant’s elder brother Mahendra Kalita, uncle Jatin Mahanta and his wife Bina Mahanta. The victim’s mother-in-law Kamala Kalita assaulted the victim and threatened to pour acid over the victim. The victim’s uncle (Peha) had to pay Rs. 10,000/- as the victim was sent to him to fetch the money by the appellant and his family members. On the night of 15.12.2003, the appellant and his family members set ablaze the victim. An FIR relating to this incident was lodged by the informant, which was registered as Jogighopa PS Case No. 88 of 2003, under Section 304-B IPC. The Investigating Officer (IO, in short) embarked upon the investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared a sketch map and forwarded the victim’s body for autopsy. On completion of investigation, the IO submitted charge sheet against the appellant, his uncle Jatin Mahanta, his mother Smt. Kamala Kalita, and his sister Smt. Minati Mahanta. On appearance of all the accused, copies were furnished and this case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, which was finally transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), for disposal. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 304-B/34 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused, who abjured their guilt and claimed innocence.

3. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 10 witnesses and the defence cross-examined the witnesses to refute the charges.

4. On the incriminating evidence, projected by the prosecution witnesses, several questions were asked to the appellants and the tenor of the answers of the appellant and the other accused to the questions under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (CrPC, for short), depicts a plea of total denial. After assessing and scrutinizing the evidence, the appellant Raben Kalita was held guilty of offence under Section 304-B IPC, whereas the other accused were acquitted from the charges under Section 304-B IPC and set at liberty.

Submissions for the Appellant

5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that there are no specific allegations against the appellant in the FIR. No domestic violence or strained relationship between the husband and wife has surfaced through the evidence of the witnesses.

6. On the contrary, there are allegations against the appellant’s mother and brother-in-law, who have been acquitted from the charges under Section 304-B IPC. The evidence of the witness, PW-2 exonerates the appellant. The oral dying declaration of the victim made to the PW-2, reveals that the victim caught fire. PW-2 and PW-5 reveals that the victim stated before them that she caught fire from the burning candle in her bedroom.

7. It is further submitted that PW-1 has stated through his FIR and through his evidence-in-chief that the victim had suffered acid burns, whereas, on the contrary, the other witnesses have stated that the victim suffered burns from candle flame.

8. It is further submitted that PW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he is not an eyewitness. The neighbours who came to the rescue of the victim hav