To establish dowry death under IPC, there must be proof of immediate cruelty or harassment preceding death; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-9, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. No. 33 of 1992, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 201/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. with default stipulation and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 201 /34 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant, Baldeo Hazra, who is the brother of the deceased had lodged FIR stating therein that the deceased Mina Devi was married with Indradeo Hazara according to Hindu rites and rituals in the year 1987. Dowry and gifts were given to the brother- in-law, Indradeo Hazara, but he was not satisfied. Indradeo Hazara (husband), mother-in-law, father-in- law and nanad (sister-in-law) of the deceased used to torture the deceased in various ways and due to which, the deceased was often sent back to her naihar (parental house). The deceased, after her marriage remained in her matrimonial home for six months and thereafter, she was sent to her naihar by her husband after being assaulted by him. After four months, the father-in-law along with husband of the deceased went to the naihar of the deceased for ‘Bidai’, then the informant sent the deceased back with them on the day of “Vijaya Dashmi”. From the date when the deceased had gone to her matrimonial home, the demand and torture were still persistent.On 20.10.1989 at about 6:30 PM the mother-in-law (appellant) and the cousin mother-in-law of the deceased came to the house of the informant and said that there was quarrel in the house and in consequence thereof, she has left the house and gone somewhere. On this information, the informant along with his family members started searching for her, but they could not find her. Again, the informant returned to the matrimonial house of the deceased and made a thorough search for her, but he could not find any trace of her. At about 8:00 PM in the night, when the informant reached near the house of Banshi Hazra and made enquiries from his family members then he was told by the mother of Banghi Hazara, Jamuna Hazara and Prayag Hazara that they have heard a sound of “Jhap” in the well. Thereafter, the informant flashed a torch in the well but nothing was seen thereafter he searched for whole of the night. Again, in the next morning, he came to the well and put a Jhaggar in the well whereupon he was resisted by the sister-in-law of the deceased namely Malwa and Banshi Hazra, but the informant was insisted on doing so and in presence of Sukhdeo Rai, Basudeo Hazra, Prakash Hazra, Banshi Hazra, he put the Jhaggar in the well which brought the dead body of the deceased on the surface of the water. He left the dead body in the well and reported the matter to the police.

4. Accordingly, on the basis of written report, Jamua P.S. Case No. 195 of 1989 was registered for the offences under Se