The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the essential facts constituting dowry death, including the proximity between the alleged cruelty or harassment and the death, and the need for cogent explanation from the accused regarding the circumstances of the death.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Govind Rai and Ashok Rai were put on trial on the charge under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing dowry death of Shankari Devi. An alternative charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against them. In Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2009, the appellants are convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-each under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, with a default stipulation to undergo SI for six months. In so far as the alternative charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned trial Judge did not advert to the evidence in this regard and there is no finding against the appellants whether the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is proved or not.

2. The fardbeyan of Kaleshwar Rai was recorded by the officer-in-charge of Taljhari PS on 9th August 2009 around 10:00 AM at Machla. Kaleshwar Rai received a telephonic information early morning on 9th August 2009 from his son-in-law Ashok Rai that Shankari Devi caught fire and died due to burn injuries. Ashok Rai was married with Shankari Devi in the year 2007. When she visited her parents' place about six months after her marriage she complained about her ill-treatment at the hands of her husband and father-in-law for bringing insufficient dowry. The informant has stated that he, however, brought his daughter to her matrimonial home and tried to reason with her father-in-law expressing his inability to give more dowry. According to the informant, on 4th August 2009 his daughter and son-in-law came to meet him but his daughter was not willing to go back to her matrimonial home. On insistence of his son-in-law he, however, performed Bidai of his daughter on 6th August 2009 and early morning about 04:00 AM on th August 2009 he received an information that his daughter has died due to burn injuries.

3. Jarmundi (Taljhari) PS Case No. 141 of 2009 was registered around 04:15 PM on 9th August 2009 under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Govind Rai and Ashok Rai. Charge-sheet No. 160 of 2009 was submitted against Ashok Rai while the investigation against Govind Rai continued. Subsequently, Govind Rai was also sent up for trial by supplementary charge-sheet dated 30th November 2009. Separate charges under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code with an alternative charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against Ashok Rai on 18th January 2010 and against Govind Rai on 12th March 2010. Both the cases which were separately committed to the Court of Sessions vide Sessions Case No. 291 of 2009 and Sessions Case No. 37 of 2010 were finally amalgamated vide order dated 17th March 2010.

4. Eight witnesses came to the witness box to depose against the accused in Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2009. The witnesses – PW6 Jhamali Devi and PW7 Baldev Rai – who are co-villagers of the accused did not support the prosecution in the Court and were declared hostile. Kaleshwar Rai and his wife Rambhawati Devi have deposed in the Court about harassment of their daughter at the hands of the accused in connection to demand of dowry.

5. The learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka recorded a finding that there are some contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses but on the main issue their evidence is quite consistent with the prosecution case; the witnesses are reliable and trustworthy; defence plea that Shankari Devi caught fire accidentally through Dhibari (small lamp) is not supported by any evidence, and; evidence of PW4 and PW5 establishes that Shankari Devi was put to harassment and cruelty in connection to demand of dowry about six months prior to her death.

6. Govind Rai and Ashok Rai are found guilty under section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code by raising a presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

7. As noticed above, both the accused are sentenced to RI for life and a fine of R