For conviction under dowry death, the prosecution must establish a demand for dowry and harassment, alongside the death occurring within seven years of marriage, allowing for a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by Jai Shakar Shukla against the judgment and order dated 17.10.1994, passed in Sessions Trial No.19 of 1992 ( State Vs. Jai Shanker Shukla and Another ) by the Special Judge, Unnao convicting the appellant under Section 498-A I.P.C and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 and in case of failure of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicting the appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. It has further been provided that all the sentences would run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been wrongly and illegally convicted and sentenced. He submitted that the offences under Section 4 98-A and 304-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred as IPC) could not be proved against the appellant and there was no charge under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because no witness supported the prosecution case. He further submitted that five witnesses were produced in support of the charge, out of which PW-4 and PW-5 are chance witnesses and the conviction has been made solely on the evidence of PW-4, whose testimony is also hearsay evidence. He also submitted that PW-4 and PW-5 did not tell the date and time of the incident. PW-4 was not shown in the site plan and he did not identify the victim, therefore, his presence itself is doubtful. It has further been submitted that the deceased suffered 100% burn injuries as per the postmortem report, therefore, she could not have been in a position to speak anything. However, PW-4 on the basis of a statement allegedly made by the deceased to some person, stated that she was burnt by her husband and in-laws due to the non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, conversely, her father and mother have not supported the factom of demand of dowry. Thus, it has been submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the offences levelled against the appellant.

4. It has also been submitted that the Doctor, Head Muharrir and Investigating Officer were not produced to prove the post-mortem, FIR and charge sheet respectively. Thus, the statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded by Investigating Officer could not have been relied upon. It was also submitted that although two site plans were produced but they have not been proved and since PW-4 was not shown in the site plan, his presence itself at the spot is doubtful, and his presence on the spot could have been proved only by the Investigating Officer, who was not examined.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside by this Court. He relied on Bhupal Singh & Another Vs. State of Uttrakhand; 2025 All SCR (CRL) 341, Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.7380 of 2019; Mohit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. by a co-ordinate bench of this court, judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 passed in Chabi Karmakar and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal ; Criminal Appeal No.1556 of 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, judgment and order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.1076 of