The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not achieved due to credible discrepancies in evidence and testimony regarding the cause of death and allegations of dowry harassment.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2019/31.08.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No.09 of 2019, State vs. Anil Ghildiyal, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge Bageshwar. By it, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 3 02 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and has been convicted under Sections 304 -B, 498-A and Section 4 of the Act and sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 304B IPC :- To undergo imprisonment for life.

(ii) Under Section 4 of the Act:- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded is as follows. The deceased Neema and the appellant were married on 21.02.2018. On 26.03.2019, the deceased was found dead at the bank of river Saryu in District Bageshwar. PW1 Gopal Dhyani, the brother of the deceased lodged an FIR with the allegations that the appellant was working as a Driver in the Police Department. After marriage, he would beat the deceased and demanded dowry. He had physically and mentally tortured the deceased. The deceased, quite often conveyed it to PW1 Gopal Dhyani and his wife PW2 Kusuma Devi. A suspicion was raised that the deceased died due to poison having been administered to her by the appellant. Based on the FIR, Case Crime No.55 of 2019, under Sections 302 , 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 3 /4 of the Act was lodged against the appellant and investigation proceeded. Inquest of the dead body was prepared on the same day. It is important to note that the appellant was one of the witnesses to the inquest. The witnesses opined in the inquest report that the cause of death is not known, therefore, the postmortem of the dead body may be conducted. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted on 26.03.2019 at 04:45 p.m. The doctors found semi-digested food present in the stomach, which was non-foul smelling. The cause of death could not be ascertained. In order to ascertain the cause of death, viscera was preserved and sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory.

4. It may be noted that after postmortem eight police papers, two copies of postmortem report in a sealed bundle were handed over to the concerned officer. It is important to note that the postmortem report does not record that viscera was taken and handed over to police. It has significance; it could be discussed at a later stage, in quite detail. The prosecution claims that the viscera preserved from the dead body was sent for forensic examination and the forensic report detected the Organo-chloro Insecticide poison in it. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, which is Ex. A-18 and conducted the investigation and finally, submitted the charge-sheet Ex. A-19 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 3 04-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 /4 of the Act, that is the basis of the case.

5. On 02.07.2019, charge under Sections 304 -B, 302, 498-A IPC and Section 3 /4 of the Act were framed against the appellant, to which, he denied and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, namely, PW1 Gopal Dhyani, PW2 Smt. Kusuma Devi, PW3 Smt. Saruli Devi, PW4 Km. Pooja, PW5 Damodar Dhyani, PW6 Balkrishna, PW7 Mainpal Singh, Naib Tehsildar, PW8 Dr. Pradeep Kumar C