The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of cruelty or harassment for dowry demands soon before a woman's death to establish guilt under Section 304-B IPC.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2005 and sentence dated 25.05.2005 respectively passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Vaish, then learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI , Hazaribagh in S.T. No. 336 of 2004/ 65 of 2004 arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No. 9 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 145 of 2004, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under sections 304-B , 498-A/34, 201 and 323/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven (07) years, R.I. for Two (02) years, S.I. for Six months and R.I. for one year respectively and also to pay the fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant had submitted written application before the Officer-in-Charge, Barhi Police Station, stating therein that one year ago (i.e. in the year 2003) his daughter Bijanti Devi was married with one Mahesh Yadav as per Hindu custom and he had given Dowry amount as per capacity. However, after sometime, father-in-law of her daughter, namely Alak Mahto, Mother-in-law, namely Baswa Devi (i.e. the appellant), Husband, namely Mahesh Yadav and Gotni, namely Sangita Devi, Bhaisur, namely Shahdeo Yadav and Devar, namely Fulgi Yadav started demanding further dowry of Rs.5,000/- and asked his daughter to bring the amount from her father and for which they had assaulted his daughter several times. Although the Informant had stated before them that he had no money, but they have threatened him of dire consequences. On 16.01.2004, he learnt that his daughter had died due to drowning in the Well.

3. On the basis of Written Application submitted by the Informant-Mahadeo Mahto on 16.01.2004 before the Officer-in-Charge, Barhi Police Station, Police has instituted Barhi P.S. Case No. 9 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 498-A/ 323/ 304- B/34 of the I.P.C. against seven person including the appellant. Later on, Section 3 02 of I.P.C. was added by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, added Section 3 02 I.P.C. vide order dated 15.03.2004.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred while passing the Judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the evidence in its true perspective. It is submitted that none of the prosecution witness has even whispered while deposing in court about any demand ever made from the appellant side to constitute offence u/s 304-B of the I.P.C. It is submitted that the learned court below has further erred in passing the impugned judgment impugned ignoring the fact that it was not an un-natural death. Even the prosecution witnesses had pointed out that the deceased had died due to accidental fall in well which cannot constitute an offence u/s 304-B of the IPC. It is submitted that the learned court below has also not taken in to consideration the fact that although the Doctor has found some injuries, but the same is not sufficient to cause death and the Doctor has not stated anything as to whether the injuries were antemortem or postmortem in nature. It is submitted that the learned court below has not taken into co