JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Appeal may kindly be allowed and while setting aside the Judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, the appellant be acquitted from the offence under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC.”

1.1 Vide the impugned judgment dated 19.08.2019, the accused-appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC; for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further 15 days simple imprisonment and; for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, he was sentenced to undergo ten years simple imprisonment; both the sentences were order to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of this case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant are that a complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand by one Lala Ram (complainant) on 28.10.2015, alleging therein that his daughter, who passed away on 14.10.2015, was tortured by her husband and in-laws. And that, his daughter was also assaulted by her husband, at the complainant’s house, four months prior to her death.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband submits that the learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment of conviction, as it is a matter of record that not a single witness has stated that there was any kind of harassment or torture by her husband or in-laws, and that no demand for dowry was made, but the said factual aspect was not taken into due consideration by the learned trial court, before passing the impugned judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband further submits that in the Bhil community, no tradition/ritual of dowry exists, which makes the version of the prosecution highly improbable.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband also submits that no ingredient for constituting the offences under Section 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. is made out against the accused, and that the main ingredient that harassment must be proven in connection with a demand for dowry against the wife, is absent in the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband, while opposing the finding recorded by the learned trial court, that the appellant meted out cruelty to the deceased victim through denying her the freedom of wearing jeans, denying her permission to continue her studies, is false and untrue, as the appellant himself bought her pairs of jeans, and never denied her permission to continue studies.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband also submits that the learned trial court has therefore incorrectly convicted the appellant, and thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes, and submits that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction against the accused-appellant, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and a perusal of the evidence on record.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned trial court has recorded that the deceased victim was treated cruelly by her husband, and that when she secured admission into the Second Year of her college course, her husband denied her permission to continue her studies and threatened her life, tore her clothes and physically assaulted her.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that, as per the complaint filed, the spot where the deceased-victim’s body was found, she died allegedly by committing suicide is not believable, since there was no table there nor were there any kind of forced entry on the door to break into the room where she was found, and that she was short in height which makes the sto