The prosecution must establish a proximate link between dowry-related harassment and death to convict under Section 304B IPC.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 

1. In the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 03.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrikaranpur (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 16/2007 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Jadawali and Ors.) whereby the accused-respondents herein were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 302 & 304B IPC, though, they were convicted and sentenced under Section 498A IPC.

2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 2007 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2009.

3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the appellant-State, are that on 04.04.2007, a written report was presented before Police Station, Shrikaranpur alleging therein that one Vimla @ Pammi (daughter of the complainant) was married to accused-respondent Gopal, 11 months prior to the presentation of the report. It was alleged that just after 3 months of the marriage his daughter was being harassed for demand of dowry by the accused-respondent Gopal (Husband), accused-respondent Jadawali (Mother in law) and accused-respondent Khushwanti (Sister in law). The report stated that, due to the said harassment the complainant made his daughter stay at his home, whereupon 2 months prior to the presentation of the report, one relative by the name of Gevarram, who had mutual relations with the complainant and the accused-respondents assured that the accused-respondents would not fight or beat the daughter of complainant, and would also not make any demand of dowry or money, and thereupon Gevarram took the daughter of complainant along with him. It was further alleged in the report that thereafter, the complainant with his daughter went to his home, from where the accused-respondent Gopal, after 2 days took her with him. It was further alleged in the said report that on 03.04.2007 at around 8:30 p.m. the complainant got to know that all accused-respondents had set the daughter of the complainant on fire, and she had been admitted in the Shriganganagar Hospital. It was further alleged that when complainant inquired, his daughter told him that accused-respondents poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, and the father in law of the complainant’s daughter was not in home at the relevant time.

3.1. On the basis of the aforementioned information, a case was registered under Section 498A and 304B IPC and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondents under Sections 304B and 498A IPC before the concerned Court, and after hearing arguments on the stage of framing of charge, the said charges were read over to the accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial, thereafter upon an application being preferred by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court passed order dated 01.09.2008 for addition of the charge under section 302 IPC, in alternative of charge under section 304B IPC and the said charges were also read over to the accused-respondents, which were denied and trial was claimed, the trial commenced accordingly.

3.2. Owing to the nature of offences charged, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions for the necessary trial.

3.3. During the course of trial, the statements of 18 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 18) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 30) were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, document (Ex.D.1 to 6) were exhibited; where-after, the accused-re