The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between dowry death and other offences under the Penal Code, emphasizing the need for the death to be in connection with any demand for dowry to constitute a dowry death under S.304(B). The judgment also underscores the importance of senior police officers' involvement in investigating cases related to atrocities against women.

K. Sreedharan, J.

1. Accused, 4 in number, were charged with offence punishable under S.498(A) and read with S.34 of the I. P. C. After trial, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottayam convicted first accused for the offence under S.498 (A) of the I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause to suffer simple imprisonment for 9 months. Accused 2 to 4 were acquitted under S.235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. First accused challenged that decision before the Sessions Court, Kottayam by preferring Crl. Appeal No. 52/90. While that appeal was pending, State preferred Crl. Appeal 366/90 questioning the correctness of acquittal of all the accused for the offence under S.304(B). Thereupon this court withdrew Crl. Appeal 52/90 from the Sessions Court and renumbered the same as Crl. Appeal No. 73/92. Arguments were heard on these two appeals and we are disposing of them by this common judgment.

2. The prosecution version of the incident, in short, is as follows: - First accused Jose alias Saju married Bijimol, the daughter of P. Ws. 2 and 3 on 31-1-88. Accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused, 4th accused is his elder brother. In connection with the demand for dowry accused subjected Bijimol to cruelty and harassment. As a result of that, she committed suicide by hanging on 15-10-88 at about 12. 15 P. M.

3. P. W. 1, the brother of the deceased went to the police station and gave Ext. P1 First Information Statement to P. W. 16, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at 1.30 P. M. on the same day. On the basis of that, crime 398/88 of Palai Police Station was registered. The earlier part of the investigation was conducted by P. W. 17, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palai. Subsequently he entrusted the investigation with P. W. 18, the Sub Inspector of Police, Palai. He after completing the investigation laid the charge before court. On the side of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 18 were examined, Exts. P1 to P20 were marked and M. Os. 1 to 3 were marked. On the side of the defence, D. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined, Exts. D1 to D3 and X1 proved.

4. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether accused committed the offence punishable under S.304(B) or 498(A) of the Penal Code.

5. In Crl. Appeal 382/91 this court laid down the essential factors to establish the offence under S.304(B) of the Code. Those ingredients are: -

(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances:

(ii) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

(iii) Soon before her death she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should have been for or in connection with demand for dowry.

In this case, the issue is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the above ingredients.

6. The marriage between Bijimol and first accused took place on 31-1-88. It was pursuant to the betrothal ceremony held on 13-1-88. It is the common case of parties that she returned to her paternal home from the house of the accused on 5-3-88. Thereafter she had no contact with the accused. While so, she committed suicide by hanging herself at about 12.15. P. M. on 15-10-88. From these circumstances, we are clear in our mind that prosecution succeeded in establishing the first two grounds among the 4 mentioned above i. e. Bijimol's death was otherwise than under normal circumstances and that the death occurred within seven years of her marriage.

7. In order to establish cruelty and harassment, the prosecution would contend that there was demand for dowry by the accused. Dowry has been defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act as amended by Act 43 of 1986. It reads: -

In this Act, (i) "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indi