To establish conviction under Section 304B IPC, prosecution must prove simultaneous occurrence of three conditions including harassment shortly before death, otherwise acquittal is warranted.

JUDGMENT :

Ananda Sen, J.

This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2016 and order of sentence dated 21.09.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, in S.T. No.177 of 2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offences under Section 304 B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years each with fine of Rs.25,000/- each under Section 304 B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and in default of payment of fine amount, further to undergo simple imprisonment of two years.

2. Learned senior counsel representing the appellants submitted that there is no material to convict the appellant Nos.2 and 3, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Admittedly from the evidence, there is nothing to suggest that they had demanded money as dowry nor there is evidence to suggest that they had tortured the deceased. So far as appellant No.1 is concerned, it has been submitted that the allegation that he being the husband, demanded dowry and tortured the deceased, is also without any legal evidence. On this ground, he prays that this appeal be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of the appellants and submitted that the appellants together carried out the incident. He stated that almost every witnesses have stated that there was constant demand of dowry by her in-laws and before her death, she was subjected to assault and cruelty for non-fulfilment of dowry. He submitted that it is a case of dowry death and the decision of the learned Trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants does not warrant any interference as the in-laws of the deceased subjected her to assault for non-fulfilment of dowry and thereafter set her ablaze, due to which her body got burnt and she died. He implored this Court that this appeal may be dismissed.

4. The case of the prosecution as delineated in the First Information Report on the basis of the fardbayan of informant- Jitendra Kumar Singh, is that he solemnized marriage of his sister namely Kanchan Devi with appellant No.1-Prabhat Kumar in the year 2010. He as per his capability had also given dowry for his sister’s marriage. His sister stayed for about ten days in her matrimonial home. Thereafter she went to her paternal home (naihar) and remained there for two years. One day appellant No.1 – Prabhat Kumar came there and told his sister that her father has only paid Rs.1,00,000/- and given a gold chain weighing 10 gms instead of Rs.4,00,000/- and gold chain weighing 40 gms. He further told his sister that he will not take her to his house until her father pays all the amount and golden chain else he will solemnize another marriage. He also used to assault his sister. The informant at many times tried to get his sister settle down in her in-laws’ house with the intervention of local village Panchayat but to no avail, as Prabhat Kumar and his father were telling that they will not take his sister in their house. A year ago, father and uncle of appellant No.1 went to their house and took his sister to their village – Salgi forcefully with a threat that if they stop them from taking her to their house, they will lodge a complaint. Thereafter all the in-laws’ i.e. husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law,