The court found that the evidence did not satisfy the criteria for dowry death; demand for money alleged was not linked to dowry, leading to acquittal under Section 304B IPC.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.H. Algamgir, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

Facts:-

2. The fact of the instant case starts with lodging of an Ejahar on 11.06.2012 by the father of the victim, wherein it is alleged inter alia that ten years back, his daughter was married of to one Nasiruddin, who died and from the said wedlock, the victim had two children. After the death of the husband of the victim, the victim stayed in the house of her parents for about 7 years and during the said period, the appellant gave marriage proposal to her, which initially was not accepted. But, on repeated request, the victim married the appellant. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter was born. However, it is alleged that the appellant and his family members harassed the victim physically and mentally and demanded dowry since some days of the marriage. It is also alleged that on 03.06.2012, the appellant with the aim of re-marrying, caused various injures on various parts of the victim’s body. Seeing the appellant assaulting the mother, i.e. the victim, the son from her earlier marriage, came to rescue her, but the appellant assaulted him too. It is also alleged that appellant tried to kill the victim, but due to the hue and cry raised by the victim, the appellant fled away from the house and that the victim was admitted in the hospital and she breathed her last on 09.06.2012.

3. The police, on receipt of the Ejahar, registered the case under Section 304 B of the IPC .

4. The police, on conclusion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the appellant on 21.11.2016, arraying the appellant as the accused person. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, on conclusion of the necessary requirement of law, framed charges against the appellant under Sections 323 /302/304B of the IPC and the trial started.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses after which the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC., and on adducing defence witness, two in numbers, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above.

Evidence:-

6. PW-1 is the informant, i.e., the father of the victim and he stated before the learned Trial Court that he gave his daughter in marriage to the appellant and a child was born and after stating the statements already made in the FIR, he further stated that after 6/7 months of the marriage, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the informant, which the informant could not give the same due to his poor financial condition and that his daughter was tortured and that the same led to death of his daughter. He further stated that the daughter of the deceased as well as his daughter ran to the paddy field and reported him that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by a knife blows and when he rushed to the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant running away from the house with a knife in his hand. He also stated that his wife reported him that on the day of the occurrence, the appellant came to her house and finding the victim in the courtyard, quarrelled with her and forced her to go with him and when she refused, the appellant inflicted a fist blow upon her at which the victim ran to the kitchen and the appellant chased her and finding a knife there, the appellant inflicted injuries on the victim. This witness was cross-examined at length and at no place, his statement recorded in the examination in chief was demolished. His statement to the effect that Rs.50,000/- was deman