The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act in cases of dowry death, based on evidence of demand of dowry, cruelty, and harassment.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed assailing the judgment dated 28-5-1999 passed by 8th ASJ, Bhopal in S.T. No. 69/99 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment each. The appellant No. 2/Gopilal is dead, therefore, the appeal is being dealt with regard to appellant No. 2.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of appellant No. 1 was performed with Maya on 14-4-1998. Appellant No. 2 was the father of appellant No. 1/Suresh and appellant No. 3 is the sister-in-law (wife of elder brother) of appellant No. 1. At the time of marriage, the appellant No. 1 demanded a motorcycle and a colour T.V. as dowry. The family members of deceased/Maya assured to give the same within a year. After her marriage, Maya had come to her maternal house three to four times. Always she used to inform her members of family, that his father-in-law/Gopilal, husband/Suresh and sister-in-law/Shyamwati are constantly demanding motorcycle. She also narrated that her husband/Suresh has been treating her with cruelty. Suresh has been instigated by the other accused persons Gopilal and Shyamwati for the same. On 5-12-1998, Maya died in suspicious circumstances at her matrimonial home by consuming poison. Police Station, Gautam Nagar was informed about the same. Ex.P/12 Rojnamcha drawn. Ex.P/10 was drawn after the merg report. Issuing notice to the witnesses Panchnama (Ex.P/9) was prepared. Pre MLC report (EX.D/3) was received. After requisition for post-mortem by Ex.P/1, post-mortem was conducted. Written complaint was made by the mother of the deceased to Police Station, Gautam Nagar. Crime No. 294/98 was instituted.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed for offences under sections 304-B and 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After committal charges have been framed against the appellants for offences under sections 306 in alternative 304-B of Indian Penal Code. Appellants abjured guilt and contended that Gulab Singh (PW/7) used to visit the house of the appellant to meet Maya in the absence of her husband Suresh. In this regard, there was a tussle. He also threatened to kill. The appellants also alleged that two days before the incident, they had seen Gulab Singh in compromising position with Maya when it was objected Gulab Singh threatened the appellants to kill two days before the incident. Gulab Singh had come to the in law’s place of Maya with two small packets, one containing sweets (Jalebi) and the other packet was not known what contained. The appellants challenged the judgment impugned on several grounds. It is claimed that the statement of deceased Maya was not immediately recorded when she was shifted to the hospital. There was no evidence of any physical cruelty and harassment to the deceased immediately or soon before the incident. The prosecution failed to establish treatment of cruelty by the appellants. There is no documentary proof or oral testimony about the cruelty and harassment. (PW/4, PW/5 and PW/6) namely Ram Singh, Subelal and Durga Prasad did not support the prosecution case. There are numerous contradictions and omissions with regard to the statements of PW/10 Dayaram, the father of the deceased, PW/2 Krishna, the mother of the deceased, PW/9 Prabha, the sister of the deceased, therefore, their statements are not reliable. The prosecution failed to prove allegation of demand of dowry or cruel treatment beyond reasonable doubt hence, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposing the arguments advanced, referring the incriminating piece of evidence contended that the statement of Dayaram (PW/10), Smt. Krishna (PW/2) and Prabha Maran (PW/9) submitted that the judgment impugned is well merited and calls for no interference. It is further contended that the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of