The court affirmed convictions under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC for dowry death, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence showing ongoing cruelty linked to dowry demands.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Sections 304B and 498A/34 of the IPC.

2. Appellant- Ranjeet Sao is the husband, who was married to the deceased in 2011. After the marriage, the appellants made a dowry demand of Rupees One Lakh and a motorcycle and used to torture the deceased physically and mentally in reference to it. Several times, Panchayti was held in this regard, but things did not improve and the deceased used to confide to the informant about the threat to her life arising out of the dowry demand. On 20.05.2014, informant received information at around 10 O’ clock that she had been killed by her in-laws.

3. On the basis of the written report of C.S. Gupta (P.W. 6), Dandai P.S. Case No.47/14 was registered against the appellants under Sections 4 98A, 304B/34 of the IPC and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet. The appellants were jointly put on trial for offences under these Sections 4 98A, 304B, 201/34 and 302/34 of the IPC.

4. Altogether seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant document including post-mortem examination report has been proved and marked as Exhibit 2.

5. After prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is of innocence, but no specific defence was pleaded in statement made by the appellants. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence.

6. Learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 304B, 498A/34 of the IPC while acquitting of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.

7. During pendency of the appeal, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, issued notice to the appellant- Ranjeet Sao in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1305 of 2016 as to why his sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304B/34 of the IPC, be not enhanced, considering the post-mortem examination report wherein the death was found to be caused due to asphyxia by ante-mortem throttling and thereafter, the dead body having been burnt thereafter.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellants (father- in-law and mother-in-law) in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1257 of 2016 that in order to prove the charge under Section 3 04B of the IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that soon before the death, deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to the dowry demand. In the present case, marriage took place in 2011 whereas the date of incidence is 20.05.2014 i.e. after a lapse of about three years. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any dowry demand or harassment to the deceased which became the proximate cause for her unnatural death. None of the independent witness has come forward to buttress the charge of dowry demand or harassment. On the contrary, D.W. 1, D.W. 2, D.W. 3 and D.W. 4, who are the co-villagers of the appellants, have deposed that the in-laws were living separately, since after one year of the marriage and they have never made any dowry demand or subjected the deceased to cruelty. In the absence of any evidence to establish these ingredients which are fundamental to prove the charge, conviction under Section 3 04B of the IPC of these appellants, is