The prosecution must prove all three ingredients of Section 304B IPC for conviction; failure to establish demand for dowry and torture led to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 10317 of 2023

Since this criminal appeal has been taken up for final hearing, I.A. No. 10317 of 2023 filed for suspending the sentence and to release the appellant on bail, is dismissed.

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.783 of 2017

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State at length.

3. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2017 and order of sentence dated 06.04.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 2013 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribagh convicted the appellant under section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 304B of the IPC and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under section 498A of the IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted under section 304B of the IPC but there is no evidence to suggest that soon before death either there was any demand for dowry or the deceased was being tortured for dowry. He submits that in absence of one of the basic ingredients of section 304B of the IPC, which the prosecution has not been able to establish, the appellant could not have been convicted under the aforesaid section. He further submits that though the death may be unnatural but in fact it is doubtful whether the deceased had herself consumed poison or she was administered poison. It is submitted that the evidence led by the doctor suggests that there was no injury on any part of the body which would suggest that if at all poison was administered, she consumed it herself without any external force. Further he submits that the relationship was cordial which would be evident from the cross-examination of the informant wherein he stated that after the girl child was born it is this appellant and other family members who used to take care of the deceased.

5. The learned APP opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the death had occurred within seven years of marriage and it has come in evidence that motorcycle was demanded as dowry. He further submits that the FSL report proves that the deceased died due to poisoning as organo-phosphorus was detected in the viscera. He submits that since all the three ingredients are established by the prosecution, it was the duty of the appellant to prove his innocence which he has failed. Thus, his conviction needs to be sustained.

6. The FIR is at the instance of PW8 who is the brother of the deceased. He stated that marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the deceased sometime in the year 2008. There was demand of dowry and torture was perpetrated upon his sister. Matrimonial suit was also filed by this appellant and the same was amicably settled as the deceased returned to her matrimonial house. Thereafter the informant received information that the deceased had died in her matrimonial house. The informant went to the matrimonial house and suspected that the deceased died due to poisoning as froth was coming out from her mouth.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Chouparan PS Case No. 237 of 2012 was registered under sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant.

8. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B/34 of the Indian Penal. On the basis of chargesheet and material on record cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the trial proceeded.

9. As the appellant pleaded not guilty charges were framed. It is pertinent to mention that an alternative charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against the appellant.

10. The appellant was put on trial in which 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court