IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that for a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry shortly before her death, and that the death occurred within seven years of marriage. The court also highlighted the necessity of specific allegations against each accused for a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5.7.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Shahjahanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 167 of 2016 (State Vs. Vedram and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 384 of 2015, Police Station Paraur, District Shahjahanpur, whereby the accused appellants Vedram and Smt. Kusuma Devi have been convicted and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment each, as well as accused appellant Rajendra has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, under Section 304-B IPC, and all accused appellants have also been convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/-each under Section 498-A IPC; two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/-each under Section 201 IPC; one years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-each under Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. On failure to deposit the above fines to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year each. All punishments are to run concurrently.

2. Brother of the deceased has made a written report scribed by Jugal Kishore, stating that his sister Ramkanti got married about 4 years back in the month of June, 2012 to accused Rajendra son of Vedram. She was a graduate. Rajendra and his brother Manish as well as their father Vedram and mother-in-law used to harass her for dowry and on multiple occasions she informed him on Phone and also on visits to the parental family. Although dowry was given as per the financial ability but due to poverty, the informant could not meet all demands of the accused persons. The aforesaid persons demanded a motorcycle, gold chain and ring and as demand in that regard could not be met as such his sister was tortured and has been done to death. Her body has been cremated. The incident has occurred on 19.9.2015 at 5.00 pm. The informant received a telephone call from one Rajesh about the incident and has consequently lodged the report. This written report (Ex.Ka-1) forms the basis of FIR in Case Crime No. 384 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Five persons have been implicated in the FIR, namely Vedram (father-in-law), Rajendra (husband), Manish and Anil (brothers-in-law), mother-in-law of Smt. Ramkanti (Smt. Kusuma Devi). Since the dead body had already been cremated on 19.9.2015 itself, as such neither any postmortem was possible nor any other forensic evidence is available to the prosecution. Relying upon testimony of witnesses chargesheet came to be submitted against 3 of the 5 named accused i.e. husband Rajendra as well as his parents namely Vedram and Smt. Kusuma Devi. Cognizance was taken on the chargesheet and the case was committed to the court of sessions where it got registered as Sessions Trial No. 167 of 2016. Alternate charge was also framed under Section 302/34 IPC in addition to the sections in which chargesheet was filed by the police.

3. The informant has appeared as PW-1 and has supported the prosecution case with regard to marriage having been held in June, 2012; giving of dowry articles in marriage by the family to the deceased; demand of dowry by the family members due to which she was physically and mentally harassed; demanded motorcycle, gold chain and ring. PW-1 has also proved the written report. He has also stated that he came to know of the incident on Phone and by the time family members could reach Village Varkhimaee, Police Station Paraur, District Shahjahanpur, her dead body was already cremated. In the cross-examination PW-1 has admitted that no written complaint with regard to demand of dowry was ever made. He got no information regarding death of his sister from her in-laws. He got a Phone call from one Rajesh but his Phone number is not available. He has stated that at the time of marriage, there was no complaint made regarding dowry, but it was later that dowry was demanded