The central legal point established in the judgment is that to convict under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the cause of death, timing of death in relation to marriage, and evidence of cruelty or harassment for dowry.

JUDGMENT

Ananda Sen, J. (C.A.V.) - The appellant has been convicted for committing offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years vide judgment dated 18.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 20.01.2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1995, arising out of Itkhori P.S. Case No.42 of 1991, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.

2. The prosecution is based on the fardbayan of P.W.3, the informant, who is the elder brother of the deceased. He has stated in his fardbayan that on 12.05.1991 at night, he received information that his sister (deceased) fell ill. When they went to her in-laws'' house, she was found dead. He further mentions that earlier they were informed that they should deliver the promised goods, then only her sister would be allowed to reside in her in-laws'' house. Based on this fardbayan, F.I.R. being Itkhori P.S. Case No.42 of 1991 was registered under Sections 304(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The police investigated the case and filed chargesheet under Sections 304B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 304B IPC and claimed to be tried.

4. Altogether five witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely, P.W.1 Bishuni Devi, P.W.2 Budhni Devi, P.W. 3 Naresh Thakur, who is elder brother and informant of this case, P.W.4 Ramjee Thakur, who is father of the deceased, and P.W.5 Basanti, the mother of the deceased. The appellant did not examine any witness in defence.

5. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments and after going through the records, convicted the appellant by judgment dated 18.01.2003 under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and by order dated 20.01.2003 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1995, arising out of Itkhori P.S. Case No.42 of 1991, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.

6. I have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also gone through the Lower Court Records and scanned the evidence.

7. Learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and has, thus, erred in convicting the appellant and sentencing him for the offence alleged; the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges against the appellant; the basic ingredients for making out the offence alleged are completely missing and are unsupported by the prosecution witnesses.

8. Learned A.P.P. submits that the impugned judgment and order of sentence have been passed by the learned Court below after weighing the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record and the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellant in a very specific manner. It is submitted that since the charges are proved, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Proceeding to the analysis of evidence, it is seen from the records that P.W.1 and 2 are tendered witnesses. P.W.3 is the informant, who deposed that the marriage of her sister took place with the appellant in the year 1990 and the occurrence took place in the month of 1991. He received information from some person, who came to inform them that the deceased was suffering from diarrhea. On receipt of such information, her father accompanied those persons and went to the house of the in-laws of his daughter. On reaching there, he found that his daughter is dead. He further stated that 12 days before death, appellant had written a letter informing that he is not interested in keeping the deceased with him and demanded Rs.6000/- which he spent in the tre