The prosecution must establish the demand for dowry, harassment, and a nexus between the two, beyond all reasonable doubt. Additionally, abetment in cases of suicide requires clear and cogent evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

1. The instant Appeal has been filed by the appellants-accused persons against the judgment dated 16.12.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 236 of 2000, State vs. Manoj Kumar Chamoli and Others, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC; they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and, they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1961”). All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that the deceased Smt. Sudha was married with Ved Prakash Chamoli on 14.04.2000. The parents of the deceased had given domestic articles according to their capacity, but, after the marriage, the appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli, brother-in-law (Devar) and the appellant Smt. Pushpa Chamoli, sister-in-law (Nanad) demanded scooter and color TV. She was being harassed and tortured on that pretext. The deceased Smt. Sudha informed about her harassment to her mother, however, her mother did not tell these things to her husband because they have two other un-married daughters. The deceased also reported about the harassment to her younger sister and informed her that the accused Manoj Kumar Chamoli and Smt. Pushpa Chamoli will kill her. Informant Guru Prasad Bijalwan, (P.W.1), father of the deceased, was informed that his daughter had committed suicide. His son-in-law and family members did not give any information about the incident. Appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli had illicit relationship with his tenant Smt. Veenu Verma. The deceased asked the husband of Smt. Veenu Verma regarding the illicit relationship of his wife with the appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli and asked them to vacate the house. After this allegation, Smt. Veenu Verma consumed poison but somehow she survived. However, they vacated the house on 30.06.2000, but, the illicit relationship between Smt. Veenu Verma and the appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli continued. The deceased was obstacle between their relationship. Appellant Manoj Kumar Chamoli harassed the deceased on account of dowry as well as illicit relations. Appellants along with Ved Prakash Chamoli, the husband of the deceased, and Smt. Veenu Verma killed his daughter on 20.07.2000 and showing as it is the case of the suicide. With the said allegations, (P.W.1) Guru Prasad Bijalwan lodged the chick FIR (Ext.Ka.12) through his written report (Ext.Ka1) dated 22.07.2000. Inquest proceedings and post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 21.07.2000. The First Information Report was registered on 22.07.2000. P.W.7. Anil Kumar Yadav, the Circle Officer, Rishikesh conducted the investigation of the case. The investigation was transferred to Mr. K.K. Gautam, the Circle Officer of Police. Charge-sheet (Ext. K17) was filed against the present appellants along with Mr. Ved Prakash Chamoli and Smt. Veenu Verma.

3. The case was committed to Court of Session. Appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar Chamoli, Smt. Pushpa Chamoli along with Mr. Ved Prakash Chamoli, the husband of the deceased, were charged for the offence under Section 304 B, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Act, 1961. Smt. Veenu Verma was charged for the offence under Section 120B IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined altogether ten witnesses.

5. The statements, under Section 313 of the Code of Crimin