Prosecution must prove demand for dowry and harassment soon before death to establish guilt under Section 304B IPC; absence of such evidence leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 20/25.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 25.07.2016 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.201 of 2003, whereby and wherein the appellants have been convicted for offences under Section 304(B)/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304(B)/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges of demand of dowry against the appellants as none of the prosecution witnesses did not state the date, year or day on which the demand for dowry was made. He submitted that statement of P.W.-11 namely Ratnesh Kumar Verma, suggests that he always found appellants living with the deceased, wife of appellant No.2 very peacefully and happily in the said tenanted premises. This statement has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Learned counsel beseeches the attention of this Court towards the post-mortem report of the deceased. In the post-mortem report there was no mentioning of any sign of external or internal injury on the body of the deceased and cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of drowning. Accordingly to the appellants, this may be a case of accident during process of fetching water from the well. Lastly, he submitted that P.W.-10 has been declared hostile. On these grounds, he implored this Court that this appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be acquitted.

4. Per contra, learned P.P. representing the State submits that the deceased died an unnatural death. There is evidence that there was demand of dowry and the death had occurred within seven years of marriage. He further submits that it is an admitted fact that the appellants have not informed the parents of the deceased about her death which is an additional circumstance to arrive at a conclusion that the appellants have committed the offence. Though, he has argued on all these aspects, he fairly admits that from the evidence he could not find any material to suggest that “soon before death” there was any demand for dowry or there was torture soon before death for non-fulfilment of demand.

5. Fact of the case in nutshell is that on the basis of written report of Ravindra Kumar, S.I., an F.I.R. was lodged wherein he stated that during an enquiry in connection with U.D. Case No.06/2001, dead body of Sangita Kumari, wife of Nand Kumar Saw, was found in a Well. The dead body was swollen. He stated that on seeing that, it seems as if the dead body was lying in the Well since two days. When he enquired from Nand Kumar Saw, he stated that when he came home by plying rickshaw, he came to know from his father that his wife has fled away after a fight on 07.09.2001. On 09.09.2001 post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased was conducted in which no external injury was found and cause of death was mentioned as due to suffocation by drowning in water. In term of enquiry it has come to the knowledge that deceased being upset by her in-laws, has committed suicide by drowning in the well. During enquiry the police gathered that paternal home of the deceased is at Aurangabad and the father of the deceased has lodged an F.I.R. being Hussainabad P.S. Case No.122 of 2001 regarding death of his daughter at Hussainabad, Palamu stating therein that after marriage of his daughter, her in-laws used to assault his daughter for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. He further alleged that in-laws of his daughter threatened him that if their demand were not fulfilled then he will