The judgment establishes the requirements for dowry death under Section 304-B, IPC and the admissibility of statements of the deceased and her family members as evidence.

U. S. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT Mahesh Kumar has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 8-2-1991 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in S. T. No. 198 of 1988 convicting the appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for a period of 3 years under Section 498-A, imprisonment for life under Section 304-B and R. I. for a period of 7 years under Section 201, I. P. C. Further it was directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE prosecution story, briefly stated, was that Brij Bihari Awasthi (P. W. 2) had married his daughter Smt. Sunita deceased (17) about 11 months before the occurrence of this case with the appellant Mahesh Kumar. He had provided adequate dowry in the marriage. But when Sunita deceased started living with the appellant after marriage the appellant along with his sister Km. Shashi and brother-in-law Prem Shankar started demand of scooter in dowry from Brij Bihari (P. W. 2 ). The deceased when returned back to her parents house told to her father that in case scooter was not given to the appellant in dowry, she would be killed. Prior to a few days of the occurrence Brij Bihari (P. W. 2) had sent Upendra (P. W. 1) to the Sasural of the deceased for taking her back. The appellant and the other accused told Upendra that Sunita deceased would not be sent back to her parents house unless scooter was provided to him.

( 3 ) ON the night of 7/8-5-1988 Ganga Charan (P. W. 4) Pradhan of Village of the appellant got information that Smt. Sunita w/o appellant died inside her room by burning herself. He sent a written information (Ext. Ka-5) to this effect to the S. O. , P. S. Bhoganipur, district Kanpur Dehat which was received at P. S. Bhoganipur at 6. 20 a. m. on 8-5-1988, the endorsement of which was made in G. D. report (Ext. Ka-3) by Constable Moharrir Mani Karnika Prasad (P. W. 3 ). On receipt of above information the S. D. M. Bhoganipur was informed and requested for conducting inquest of the dead body of the deceased who died within a year of her marriage. Sri Ansuman Singh the S. O. P. S. Bhoganipur also proceeded to the spot along with Police force and Inquest Book. Sri S. P. Singh S. D. M. Bhoganipur reached the spot and started inquest proceeding at 4. 00 p. m. He prepared inquest report (Ext. Ka-6) and other relevant papers (Ext. Ka-7 to Ka-11 ). Brij Bihari (P. W. 2) the father of the deceased was also present at the time of inquest and he made an endorsement (Ext. Ka-2) on the inquest report that according to situation and condition of dead body the deceased was burnt after murdering her. The dead body was sealed and sent for post mortem through Constables Vikram Singh and Chhotey Lal.

( 4 ) THE autopsy on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 9-5-1988 by a panel of two doctors consisting of Dr. B. P. Agarwal (P. W. 6) and Dr. P. Kumar and cause of death was found as asphyxia due to throttling and burn injuries on the person of deceased were found post mortem burns. The Doctor prepared post mortem report (Ext. Ka-14 ).

( 5 ) ON 10-5-1988 Upendra Kumar (P. W. 1), the brother of the deceased, sent an application to the Superintendent of Police Kanpur Dehat, alleging that the marriage of his sister Sunita was performed with the appellant 11 months before the occurrence and thereafter the appellant started demanding scooter in dowry. He had also promised to provide scooter in some time. When he went to the house of appellant to take back his sister, the appellant, his sister and sisters husband Prem Shankar compelled the deceased to tell him (Upendra Kumar) that she would not be sent with him unless scooter was provided to theappellant. On the night of 7/8-5-1988 the appellant and other co-accused killed the deceased and burnt her body. He went to lodge the report at P. S. Bhoganipur but the Police did not lodge his report and told that it would be written after receipt of post mortem report.