The conviction under Section 304B of IPC for dowry death was upheld based on established evidence of cruelty and demands for dowry, fulfilling necessary legal criteria without substantial rebuttal from the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The present criminal appeal arises out of Judgment of conviction dated 29.11.1996 and order of sentence dated 30.11.1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 327 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the appellant being husband of the deceased has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that originally this appeal was preferred by the present appellant along with his father Karamat Mian but due to death of said Karamat Mian, during pendency of this appeal, his appeal has been abated vide order dated 10.12.2024.

3. We have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tarun Kumar No. 1 as well as learned Spl. P.P., Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashisth appearing on behalf of State. Submissions made on behalf of appellant: -

4. The follofwing grounds have been taken on behalf of the appellant:-

(i) It is a case where the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304B of the IPC without appreciating the evidence in right perspective that the death cannot be said to be unnatural, rather, it was natural.

(ii) The dying declaration given by the deceased in the hospital before the investigating officer itself indicates her natural death.

(iii) It has further been contended that the falsity of the prosecution version is also evident from the fact that UD Case for the same occurrence was registered on the date of occurrence itself i.e. 01.01.1994 while the FIR was instituted on 03.03.1994, hence there is delay of about two months in institution/registration of FIR that too without any explanation.

(iv) The appellant has tried to save the life of the deceased and he has rushed to the hospital since he was not available in the house at the time of occurrence and in the meanwhile the deceased succumbed to burn injury.

(v) The story of demand of dowry and consequent torture meted to the deceased is absolutely false and concocted by the family members of the deceased with a view to put pressure upon the appellant with some ulterior motive of unlawful gain.

The learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from error of law and as such, not sustainable in the eye of law.

Submissions made on behalf of State

5. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashisth, the learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that there cannot be any benefit to defence even though FIR was instituted on 03.03.1994 reason being that the occurrence took place on 19.01.1994 and the UD case was instituted on the same day. But thereafter, the informant in a situation of non-institution of FIR by the police had to file a complaint case before the concerned magistrate and the magistrate in exercise of the power under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. has referred the matter before the Police to conduct an enquiry and proceed in accordance with law. Thereafter, getting the possibility of commission of cognizable offence, FIR was registered on 03.03.1994 based upon the direction passed by the concerned Court on 09.02.1994. Hence, merely on the ground of instituting the FIR on 03.03.1994 in such a situation will not prejudice the case of the appellant since the informant has been denied access to institute the FIR and for the said purpose, provision has been provide