The prosecution must substantiate the ingredients of the offenses with direct and convincing evidence, particularly in cases related to dowry death, cruelty, and harassment. The court emphasized the importance of proving cruelty or harassment soon before the death of the woman to invoke the statutory presumption of dowry death.

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 22-4-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No.434/1994, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 304-B, 498A and 201 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 7 years, 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-and 2 years and a fine of Rs. 200/-respectively, with default imprisonment.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 3-7-1994, Pura, the Chowkidar of village Chirmiya gave an information to B.S. Parmar, SHO, police station Mahindpur to the effect that, the deceased Chandarbai, the wife of the appellant Hakam Singh had died, however, the reasons of her death, could not be ascertained. In the morning, the mother of the deceased was insisting that the father of the deceased should be called and the postmortem of the dead body should be done, but the appellants did not adhere to the request of the mother of the deceased and have performed the last rites. The deceased Chanderbai was not sick. Merg enquiry No.16/1994 was registered and the statements of Kamlabai, the mother of the deceased, Balu Singh, the father of the deceased and other witnesses were recorded. It was alleged by the mother of the deceased, that the deceased had injuries on her body and also asserted that the deceased did not die because of any ailment. It was also stated by Kamlabai, that the appellants, in-spite of repeated demands, did not wait for the father of the deceased to come and also did not get the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased done and cremated the deceased in haste and accordingly, the police registered the F.I.R. in crime no.124/1994 against the appellants and Puralal for offence under Sections 304B, 498A and 201/34 of I.P.C. and after concluding the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the appellants and co-accused Puralal for offence under Sections 304B, 498A and 201/34 of I.P.C.

3. One complaint was also filed by the police under Section 176 of I.P.C. and the said case was also committed to the Sessions Court and the said case, i.e S.T. No.82/1998, was clubbed with the trial of S.T. No.434/1994.

4. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 304B, 201 and 498A of I.P.C.

5. The appellants and the co-accused Puralal abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Pura (P.W.1), Harishchand (P.W.2), Kamla bai (P.W.3), Sunderbai (P.W.4), Ramibai (P.W.5), Mankunwarbai (P.W.6) Gathabai (P.W.7), Nanuram (P.W.8), Mangilal (P.W.9), B.B. Singh Parmar (P.W.10) and H.S. Kushwah (PW.11). The appellants examined Bahadur Singh (D.W.1) and Ram Singh (D.W.2) in their defence.

7. The Trial Court by judgment and sentence dated 22-4-1999, passed in S.T. No.434/1994, convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 201/34 of I.P.C. and acquitted the co-accused Puralal of all the charges. Since the acquittal of the co-accused Puralal has not been challenged, either by the prosecution or by the complainant, therefore, any reference to the co-accused Puralal, would be for considering the allegations against the appellants.

8. It is not out of place to mention here that the appellant no.2-Ambaram, died during the pendency of this appeal and his appeal has been dismissed as abated and his name has been deleted from the array of appellants in the cause title.

9. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was ever maltreated by the appellants. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the marriage of the deceased had taken place with the appellant no.1 Hakam Singh, within 7 years of marriage. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the deceased was harassed by the appellants, soon before her death.

10. Per contra, it is