The judgment established the need for a proximate and live link between dowry harassment and the woman's death, and emphasized the statutory presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.11.1998 passed by learned Second ASJ Katni, District Katni in S.T. No. 621/1997 whereby the learned ASJ has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') as well as Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1961'). Since, offence under Section 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of the Act 1961 occurred in the course of the same transaction, the trial Court sentenced him under Section 304-B of IPC to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs. 5000/-. Default stipulation has also been imposed by trial Court.

2. According to prosecution case, on 18.08.1997 information regarding unnatural death of deceased by burn was reported to police by the appellant. Police registered the marg intimation report and inquired the matter. During inquiry, police conducted the post-mortem of the deceased as well as recorded the statements of witnesses whereby it was revealed that marriage of deceased Rupa Gupta was solemnized with appellant on 07.05.1993. During marriage, initially no demand of dowry was made by the appellant and his brother Ramkrishn but after performing Bhanwar rituals, the appellant demanded scooter which could not be fulfilled by the father of deceased i.e. Lallu Lal (PW1). Thereafter, the appellant and his brother started reproaching the deceased for not giving scooter by her father. They were continuously demanding scooter or Rs.20,000/- in lieu of that. The father of deceased Lallu Lal (PW1) had given Rs.8,000/- to the appellant and promised to give rest of the amount after paddy harvest. Being annoyed from non-fulfillment of demand, appellant started torturing the deceased for demand of dowry, resultantly, the deceased died of unnatural death by setting herself ablaze in her matrimonial residential house. Thereafter police registered FIR (Ex.P/24) against present appellant and his brother Ramkrishn Gupta for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC as well as 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

3. After completing the investigation, police filed the charge sheet.

The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, the prosecution has produced 18 prosecution witnesses. The trial Court also recorded the statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Judge, came to conclusion that the appellant is guilty for the offence as mentioned in para -I. However, the learned trial Judge acquitted the co-accused Ramkrishn from the alleged offences as he found that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against co-accused Ramkrishn.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad-in-law and contrary to facts and evidence of the case. The evidence led by the prosecution witnesses suffers from serious infirmity. The judgment of trial court is based upon the testimony of interested witnesses i.e. Lallu Lal ( PW-1), Krishna Bai Gupta (PW-2), and Bahori Lal (PW-5) whereas they have turned hostile. Jagdish Namdeo (PW-3) and Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-12) are neighbour of the deceased, who deposed that they never saw appellant treating the deceased with cruelty. The appellant was not present during the incident. The prosecution failed to bring any cogent evidence against the appellant with regard to demand of dowry. The learned trial court ought to have seen that there is no independent witness who supported the prosecution case. No such prior report or complaint with regard to making demand of dowry and cruelty with the deceased, has ever been made by the deceased herself or by her relatives. The appellant himself reported the incident to polic