The main legal point established is the requirement for evidence of dowry demand just before the death in cases of dowry death under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2003 and the order of sentence dated 05.09.2003, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega, in S.T. No. 126 of 2001, arising out of G.R. No. 158 of 2001, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on April 26, 2001, the informant's sister Geeta Devi (now deceased) was married to accused Pramad Sao, and all necessary gifts except palang were given in the marriage and she was harassed because of that. When she returned to naihar she narrated about the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by her husband and her in-laws to her mother. The informant came to know about the cruelty meted out to his sister after her death from his mother. Accordingly, informant submitted written report at Kolebira Police station. On the basis of said written report FIR was drawn up against the accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant case is not a case of bride burning; rather it is only a chance that the deceased died of burning due to fire caused by the Dhibri. Learned trial court has acquitted the father-in-law of the deceased on the same set of evidence. There is no deposition of the effect that just before her death victim has suffered cruelty or harassment by any of the in-laws.

Though the allegation made by the mother of victim is omnibus in nature, that there was demand of dowry, however, father and brother of the victim did not support the aforesaid version and in the case of dowry death there has to be a demand of dowry just before the death. As per the evidence/deposition by the prosecution witnesses especially the mother of the deceased that there was a demand of wooden cot (Palang) but it is not proved that there was a record of demand for the same.

Last but not the least, there is also no allegation with respect to dowry even prior to the marriage as it appears from the FIR that no demand was made in consideration of the marriage and all items which were given to the appellant No.1 was on free will and with consent, as such since there was no independent witness to the occurrence it would not be safe to convict a person for dowry death.

The learned trial court has though referred the fact of UD case which was lodged by brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased, however, no cognizance was taken on that UD case and the trial court has not given any finding.

5. Learned APP supported the judgment of the learned trial court and submits that there was a demand of wooden cot though she was unable to say any particular date or event or such demand was made just before the date of occurrence. She fairly submits that the demand of wooden cot was in general, in view of the deposition of the mother of the victim that the victim came to her maternal place (maike) and told that the family members of her husband are demanding palang. However, there is no statement of any of the prosecution witness that if the wooden cot will not be given to them she will face dire consequences. However, there is an allegation that due to wooden cot there was harassment of the victim.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and lower court records it appears that so far as the death of the victim is concerned, it happened just after 53 days of marriage. From the deposition of the entire prosecution witness it does not transpire that there was any demand of dowry just before the death of the victim, however, it is proved that wooden cot was demanded.

It further transpires that the time of occurrence was somewhere in the evening, inasmuch as, the FIR suggests that the burn was caused due to dhibri. It further transpires that the P.W. 2 who is fat