IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores that in dowry death cases, the prosecution must prove cruelty and demand for dowry beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.08.2004, passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Sessions Trial No.2 of 2004, “State Vs. Jagdish Prasad”, by which, the appellant-accused has been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Smt. Bhuvneshwari (deceased) was married to the appellant on 11.06.2003. After marriage, appellant started harassing her for demand of dowry. Once the appellant had beaten her badly in her mother’s house. Appellant used to tell her that she had not even brought a color television. Appellant had threatened her several times that he would push her into the river. On 01.09.2003, the brother of the appellant went to her mother’s house and informed that she had committed suicide by hanging herself.

3. Smt. Dhuma Devi (PW3), Bhuvneshwari’s step-mother, gave a written information (Ext.Ka.8) to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ukhimath on 25.09.2003, on which the Naib Tehsildar was directed to inquire the matter. On 25.09.2003 itself, Naib Tehsildar, Ukhimath, directed the Patwari, Bheeri to inquire the matter and take legal action. Patwari, Bheeri had received information about the incident on 01.09.2003 itself. The inquest proceedings were conducted by him on the same day and post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 02.09.2003, while the First Information Report was registered by Patwari, Bheeri on 11.11.2003 on the basis of the written information dated 25.09.2003 (Ext.Ka.8).

4. Mr. N.S. Nagniyal, Naib Tehsildar (PW7) (Revenue Police) took up investigation. He recorded statements of the witnesses. Site plan (Ext. Ka. 10) was prepared by him. Appellant was arrested by him on 15.12.2003. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka. 12) was submitted by him.

5. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant-accused. As the appellant-accused pleaded innocence, trial was held.

6. In order to establish the accusations, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.

7. Statements of the appellant-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied all the incriminating evidence, produced/adduced by the prosecution. According to the appellant-accused, his mother was paralysed. The wives of his elder brothers resided outside with their husbands. She had to serve his mother while residing with her in the village. She had to clean his mother’s feces and urine. He worked in Patiala, Punjab and resided in Dera Bassi, Punjab. She did not want to serve his mother. She wanted to live with him in Dera Bassi, Punjab. There was no one else at his house to take care of his mother, therefore, he refused to take her with him to Dera Bassi, Punjab. Due to this resentment, she committed suicide. He had gone to Dera Bassi, Punjab from his house on 28.08.2003. On the day of the incident, he was in Patiala, Punjab, where he used to work. He was a tenant in Raj Rani’s house in Dera Bassi, Punjab. On 01.09.2003, his landlady received a phone call at around 7:30 in the morning. Smt. Raj Rani did not inform him about his wife’s death, but instead asked him to go to his house immediately. Appellant had examined himself (OPW3), Smt. Raj Rani (OPW1) and Raghubeer Singh Negi (OPW2) in support of his submissions.

8. According to Raghubeer Singh Negi (OPW2), he had informed Raj Rani (OPW1) over phone on 01.09.2003 at around 7:00 in the morning about the death of the appellant’s wife.

9. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present