The prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death to establish guilt under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by Purshottam Sindhi (husband of the deceased Jyoti), Gopal Sindhi (brother-in-law of the deceased), and Smt. Janki Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased) against the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.1996 passed under sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Vide order of even date, the appellants were sentenced life imprisonment u/s 304B IPC and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month. Sentence u/s 498A IPC is of three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. Both the sentences run concurrently.

2. During pendency of the appeal, Smt. Janki Devi expired and the appeal was abated qua her.

3. The facts as per the prosecution are that the FIR dated 22.08.1993 under sections 304B and 498A IPC was lodged at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur at the instance of Arjun Das (brother of the deceased). It was stated that a relative of the complainant informed that deceased was burnt and taken to the hospital. On reaching the hospital the deceased told the complainant that she was harassed to the extent that she was left with no other alternative but to set herself on fire. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused u/s 304B and 498A IPC. In the statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated it to be a case of false implication and that the deceased was neither harassed nor treated in a cruel manner. There was no demand of dowry.

3.1 The prosecution examined twenty three witnesses and produced twenty one exhibits. The case of the prosecution was set up mainly on the testimony of (i) PW2- Ramesh (neighbour of the in-laws of the deceased); (ii) PW4- Smt. Devi (mother of the deceased); (iii) PW5- Smt. Nirmala Devi (sister-in-law of the deceased ‘Bhabhi’); (iv) PW6- Ram Chandra (brother of the deceased) and (v) PW7- Arjun Das (brother of the deceased).

3.2 For conviction the trial court considered that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the year 1990 and the incident is of August, 1993 i.e less than four years of the marriage. The cause of death was burn injury. The testimonies of PW-4 to PW-7 were relied upon to conclude that soon before the death harassment and cruelty for dowry by the accused was proved.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no eye witness to the incident. In the FIR or in testimonies of witnesses no specific instance is pointed out for demand of dowry and harassment. The argument is that PW2– Ramesh (neighbour of the in-laws) who was the first person to reach the roof where the incident occurred testified that the deceased at least eight to ten times repeated to her mother-in-law that she committed a mistake and should be taken to the hospital. It is contended that the witnesses stated that there were differences between the couple due to financial constraints.

4.1 Learned counsel relies upon testimony of PW21- Hakim Singh (Police Official) who stated that on reaching hospital the doctors refused to certify that the deceased was in a fit condition for recording of the statement. The argument is that the statement of PW7- Arjun Das that deceased whispered in his ears in hospital that she has taken extreme step due to physical abuse by the in-laws for dowry, cannot be relied upon.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial court after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence has dealt with each issue in detail. Further submission is that the ingredients of Sections 304B and 498A IPC are proved and the accused have been rightly convicted.

6. Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘1872 Act’) were inserted by the Act 43 of 1986 to specifically deal with dowry death cases where onus was shifted on accused. The sections are reproduced below:-

304B. Dowry death:- (1) Where the