IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in dowry death cases, the prosecution must prove a proximate link between dowry demands and the victim's death, shifting the burden of proof to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 11.04.2002, claiming the said relief:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that leave to appeal may kindly be granted, appeal may kindly be allowed, impugned judgment dated 11.04.2002 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused respondents may kindly be punished and sentenced for the offence under Section 498-A, 201 & 304-B and in alternative Section 302/34 IPC”.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 2001 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2002.

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that on 03.10.2001, a written report was submitted by PW.17 Ramswaroop at Bhopalgarh Police Station, stating therein that his younger sister Kaushalya (deceased) was married to one Rajuram, son of Ramdin (accused-respondent herein) 3 years ago and that the dowry was given in the said marriage as per social status and standard. The deceased informed her family regarding the dowry demands and the incessant harassment in connection with the same from last 7-8 months by her father-in-law and mother-in-law on the pretext that her family gave insufficient dowry at the time of marriage. Upon being informed, her brother (PW-17) and her mother, Smt. Bhanwari (PW-15) advised her to wait for her father’s return from his posting, and that they will talk to her in-laws about the same.

3.1. It was further stated that the deceased’s father-in-law i.e., Ramdin, visited them few days prior to the ritual of Balunda, where the deceased’s parents requested accused-Ramdin not to harass her and that their demands would be fulfilled in the said ritual; consequently, the family of the deceased gave 2.25 tola gold, a television, 10 tola silver jewelry along with other articles in the said ritual. However, in the morning of 03.10.2001 at about 7-8 AM, the family of the deceased was informed that on the previous day i.e., on 02.10.2001, accused Ramdin (father-in-law) and Vidyadevi (mother-in-law) murdered their daughter-in-law Kaushalya and cremated her hurriedly in order to destroy the evidence.

3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case was registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the investigation commenced accordingly, in connection with which accused persons-Ramdin and Vidyadevi were arrested, the place of incidence was inspected, statements of witnesses were recorded, burnt clothes, clay from the place of incident and plastic container were seized, photography of the place of incident was done, list of articles received in dowry was prepared and also the persons involved in cremation of the deceased were arrested, who were later released on Bail.

3.3. After the necessary investigation, on 05.01.2002 a charge-sheet was filed against accused Ramdin and Vidyadevi under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 201 IPC and against accused Sahiram, Gulab Singh, Hinduram, Bhagwangiri and Om Prakash under Section 201 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court and thereafter transferred in the Court of ADJ, Fast Track, Jodhpur.

3.4. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused respondents Ramdin and Vidyadevi under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and; in alternative under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC; the same were read out and explained to the accused-respondents, which they denied and claimed to stand due trial and the trial commenced accordingly.

3.5. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 19 witnesses on its behalf and the defence produced 3 witnesses to support its case, whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they pleaded innocence and their false implicat