The presumption of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC requires proof of cruelty related to dowry, established shortly before the woman's death; absence of clear evidence hampers conviction.

ORDER :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 27.08.2015 passed by learned District and Session Judge, Jaisalmer, in Sessions Case No.97/2012 by which the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 29.08.2012, complainant Murlidhar Bohra submitted a written report (Ex-P/1) to the concerned Police Station to the effect that marriage of his sister Gayatri @ Benu was solemnized with the accused-appellant on 21.11.2007. Just after marriage, the in-laws of his sister started harassing her for dowry. It was further alleged that after one month of marriage, accused- appellant and his family members beat the complainant’s sister. Later on, compromise was arrived at between the parties and the complainant's sister again started living with the accused- appellant at Jaisalmer. Even after that, again the appellant subjected the complainant’s sister physically and mentally and continuously raised demand for dowry. Upon which, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was given by the complainant to the accused- appellant. It was further submitted that the complainant’s sister started working in a company. One day, when the complainant’s sister returned home after office, she found the accused-appellant in objectionable situation with a woman. That act of the accused- appellant was informed to the complainant by his sister. Upon which, the complainant visited Jaisalmer, where a social meeting was held in this regard in which, the accused-appellant accepted his mistake and gave assurance for not repeating such type of act. Subsequently, on 24.08.2012 at about 6:30 PM, the deceased talked to her mother on phone, but after 7:00 PM, the mobile phone of the deceased was continuously switched off. Then, at about 10:00 PM in the night, the neighbour informed the complainant on mobile about the ill health of his sister. On such information, they proceeded for Jaisalmer and on the way, they received information about the death of complainant’s sister in suspicious condition and her dead-body was being taken to Phalodi. Upon reaching at Phalodi, the complainant talked with the accused-appellant about death of his sister, upon which the relatives and other persons of the society, make them understand to keep silent and then, cremation of dead-body of the complainant's sister was performed. Subsequently, after few days of cremation, the complainant on being high suspicion about the murder of his sister by the accused-appellant, submitted this written report to the Police.

4. On the said report, Police registered the FIR No.331/2012 (Ex-P/2) against the accused appellant and started investigation. During the course of investigation, Police arrested the accused- appellant and on completion of investigation, police filed challan against him.

5. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498- A, 201 IPC to the accused appellant. He denied the charges and sought trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twenty witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence, two witnesses was examined as DW-1 & DW-2.

8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the