The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry, leading to her death, in order to establish the charge under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 2002, under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“the Act), by the court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants Devki Devi and Bhagirathi Devi have been convicted under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act and have been sentenced as hereunder:-

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants Madhvanand and Bachi Ram have been convicted under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act and have been sentenced as hereunder:-

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. The deceased Santoshi Devi and appellant Madhvanand were married on 08.05.1999. Appellant Bachi Ram is the father-in-law of the deceased. Appellant Devki Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The appellant Bhagirathi Devi is the sister-in-law (elder brother’s wife of the husband of the deceased). According to the prosecution, after marriage, the appellants demanded dowry. The deceased was pregnant, but she was killed and her body was hanged from a tree so as to show as if it was a case of hanging. This information reached to the family members of the deceased. Her uncle Hari Ram, PW 3, lodged a report on 20.01.2001 at 07:50 p.m. at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. The investigation was carried out. The inquest of the deceased was conducted. Her body was found suspended from a tree. The dead body was in a seated position on the ground. The witnesses of the inquest recorded that it was not a case of hanging. It reflected, as if she was killed and hanged thereafter. The inquest report further records that from the house of the appellants upto the place of incident, there were pieces of broken bangles. The Investigating Officer (“IO”) prepared the site plan, Ex. A-4. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted. According to the doctor, the death was caused as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation. After investigation, chargesheet under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and 3/4 of the Act was filed.

4. On 04.07.2002, charge under Sections 304B, 201 and 3/4 of the Act was framed, to which the appellants denied and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses i.e. PW 1 Kishori Lal, father of the deceased, PW 2 Harish Chandra, uncle of the deceased, PW 3 Hari Ram, uncle of the deceased, who lodged the report, PW 4 Hayat Ram, PW 5 Kripal Chandra, PW 6 Narayan Singh, the IO, PW 7 Dr. Yashwant Singh Rawat, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and PW 8 SI Chaman Singh, who initially took the investigation.

6. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to the appellants, they have been falsely implicated. The father-in-law of the deceased Bachi Ram, in his examination under Section 313 of the Code has stated that the deceased was mentally not well as she was a patient of epilepsy. In their defence, the appellants examined DW 1 Suresh, DW 2 Badlu Sah and DW 3 Bachi Ram.

7. During the course of hearing of this appeal, appellant Bachi Ram died and by an order dated 07.12.2019, it has been recorded that the appeal is abated qua the appellant Bachi Ram. The appeal now is pending qua the appellants Madhvanand, Devki Devi and Bhagirathi Devi.

8. Heard learned co